appendix g city of toronto cost per benefiting …...1 / 3 benefitting homes calculation guideline...

Appendix G – City of Toronto Cost per Benefiting Property Calculation Guideline

1 / 3

Benefitting Homes Calculation Guideline

Definition:

• The number of upstream homes that move from not meeting the City’sBasement Flooding Protection Program criteria to meeting the BFPP criteria withthe construction of recommended upgrades.

• The BFPP criteria includes;– 1.8 m HGL clearance for storm and combined sewers during a 100 year

storm event.– 1.8 m HGL clearance for sanitary sewers under the May 12, 2000 storm

event.– No surcharge for shallow sewers with obvert less than 1.8 m below

ground surface.– Maximum surface ponding depth not to exceed 150 mm above the crown

of the road; for arterial roads, one lane must be free of water in eachdirection up to the 100-year storm.

Note that the base condition to estimate number of benefitting homes from should be post 75% roof downspout disconnection.

Methodologies:

• Benefitting homes are calculated upstream of recommended upgrade works.• The inclusion of homes downstream of recommended works (e.g. in the case of

storage project) would be considered an exception to the rule.• All exceptions must be documented by the EA consultant on a project by project

basis including a rationale for the exception, and the altered calculationmethodology. This will ensure transparency and repeatability.

• Benefitting homes cannot be double counted. The sum of benefitting homesfrom individual projects cannot exceed the total number of benefitting homeswithin a Study Area.

• In cases where it can be difficult to define which homes benefit from whichproject, bundling should be used to simplify this question. To this end, the goalis to create viable project bundles. Bundled projects must be hydraulicallylinked. For example, If there is an end-of-pipe project near an outfall, than thewhole area is hydraulically linked, and the gaps between individual componentsshould be less than 250 m.

• Partial calculations should not be undertaken. If at least one manhole on asewer reach (upstream or downstream manhole) does not meet the City’scriteria, then all homes within that sewer reach shall be considered asbenefitting.

• Keep in mind that the goal of this methodology is to provide a ranking tool that

2 / 3

is simple, and that can be easily applied across the city. It has not been designed to accurately determine the number of benefitting homes for each project. On average, with sometimes over counting and sometimes undercounting by small amounts, the approach should achieve the objective for the ranking of projects. The goal is to construct all works in a fair and ordered way. The tool is not meant to say that projects will never proceed.

• All benefitting home calculation values, assumptions and exceptions, should be contained in a supplemental document for internal use only. It should not be contained within the Project File for the EA study.

Sample: Figure 1 - Minor system modelling results Figure 1 shows the minor system results for the base condition under the design storm event. Assuming that a proposed project could theoretically eliminate the BF risks illustrated, homes that can be considered as benefitting from such a project are within the outline. The general rule of thumb is that if a node is not satisfying the BF HGL criteria (i.e. <1.8m depth) under the base condition, then all houses that could be connected to the sewers upstream and downstream of that node are considered benefitting from the mitigating project. There are a few additional items to consider. For example, Houses A and C on Figure 1 can be considered to be "connected" or "not connected" to a sub-standard sewer under the base condition, and could therefore be considered as "benefitting" or "not benefitting" from the project. Also, House B fronts the street on the left and is therefore assumed to be connected to the sewer on that street, which satisfies the BF HGL criteria. Therefore, House B is not benefitting from the project. Where data is available, City will provide a shapefile linking each address to a specific sewer segment to identify which sewer the house connects to. Figure 2 - Major system modelling results Figure 2 shows the major system results for the base condition under the design storm event. Assuming that a proposed project could theoretically eliminate the BF risks illustrated, homes that can be considered as benefitting from such a project are within the outline. The general rule of thumb is that if a node is not satisfying the BF major system depth criteria under the base condition, then all houses that are adjacent to the major system flow paths upstream and downstream to that node are considered benefitting from the

3 / 3

mitigating project. Figure 3 - Overlap of properties receiving storm and sanitary benefits from same project Figure 3 shows a situation where the same project includes both storm and sanitary improvements, each with different benefitting areas that overlap. The assumption has been that any property that a project benefits counts only as 1 benefitting home, even when such project eliminates both storm and sanitary related risks for that property. The reasoning is that the objective is to identify the quantity of homes benefitted by a project, not the number of times each home is benefitted by a project. As such, the number of benefitting homes where there is an overlap = #STM + #SAN – overlap.

Appendix H – Sample CSO Survey Form

Class Environmental Assessment Project

Don and Waterfront Trunk Sewer

LLI

FT-MH1000768

Sherbourne 5

1 99999 1E+05 8 18 18

NA

18/04/2008

Sanitary outlet fuly plugged; all flow bypassed to storm outlet; gate & orifice not visible hence not measured Lower Sherbourne St at Front St E

Flow Control Structure Schematic

and CSO Control Strategy

WEIR :

Date :

Plan No. :

Trunk System :

Address :

Weir Name :

Description :

Structure:

Gates Opening(in) Orifice(in) Length(ft) Thickness(in) Height(in)

Type:

Crest

AndrewsInfrastructure

Client : TORONTO Sewer System : LLI Insp. Date : 23/04/2008

REPORT NO.: 024

WEIR NO. : FT-MH1000768 WEIR Condtion:BadWeir style:

COMMENTS....

ACTION

REQUIRED......

No of Covers....... 1

Style..........

Open................... No

Scured...... No

Material............. Cast Iron

Vent Stack/Breather.. No

Material / Type...

Lifter Ring............. No

Condition............... Good

Infiltration......... None

Height ................

Surface................ Pavement

Mounded............. No

Person Access..... Good

Truck Access...... Good

Safe Accessibilty.... Good

Shape............ Irregular *

Size .....................

Material....... Brick

Surcharge........... No

Condition............. Good

From Surface........ No

Encrustation.......... None

Location.................

Active...................... None

Type................ Steps

Material............. Mixed

Complete............ Yes

Condition............ Fair

Benching............ None

Condition............ Good

Joints at Wall..... Good

Number of Pipes IN..... 1

No of Pipes OUT.......... 2

Number................. None

Material................

Serviceable............

Safe Condition.......

Condition...............

Number.............. None

Type....................

Condition...........

Cleanout.............

Serviceable.........

1. COVER 2. GRADE ADJUSTERS 3. SURFACE CONDITION

4. CHAMBER 5. INFILTRATION / INFLOW 6. STEPS / LADDERS

mm (ins)

mm (ins)

7. INVERT 8. SAFETY PLATFORMS

10. DROP PIPES - SHAFTS

No.of floors........

Safe...................

Floor Material...

Railings.............


None

9. INTERMEDIATE FLOORS

Condition........... Good

m/d/y

WEIR INSPECTION




LLI

W481

WoodField Special

12 12 4.0 10

4

18/04/2008

WoodField Road & Eastern Ave.Field Book 3



WEIR :

Date :

Plan No. :

Trunk System :

Address :

Weir Name :

Description :

Structure:


Type:

Crest



REPORT NO.: 107

WEIR NO. : W481 WEIR Condtion:GoodWeir style:

COMMENTS....

ACTION

REQUIRED......


Style..........

Open................... No

Scured...... No



Material / Type...




Height ................


Mounded............. No




Shape............ Rectangular

Size .....................

Material....... Cast Concrete





Location.................

Active...................... None

Type................ Steps

Material............. Iron








Number................. None

Material................



Condition...............


Type....................


Cleanout.............




mm (ins)

mm (ins)




Safe...................

Floor Material...

Railings.............


None



m/d/y

WEIR INSPECTION




LLI

W482

WoodField Special

12 12 4.0 12 12

3

18/04/2008

WoodField Road & Eastern Ave.Field Book 3



WEIR :

Date :

Plan No. :

Trunk System :

Address :

Weir Name :

Description :

Structure:


Type:

Crest



REPORT NO.: 108

WEIR NO. : W482 WEIR Condtion:GoodWeir style:

COMMENTS....

ACTION

REQUIRED......


Style..........

Open................... No

Scured...... No



Material / Type...




Height ................


Mounded............. No




Shape............ Rectangular

Size .....................

Material....... Cast Concrete





Location.................

Active...................... None

Type................ Steps









Number................. None

Material................



Condition...............


Type....................


Cleanout.............




mm (ins)

mm (ins)




Safe...................

Floor Material...

Railings.............


None



m/d/y

WEIR INSPECTION




LLI

W709

10.0 12 18 18

1

No chimney to surface



WEIR :

Date :

Plan No. :

Trunk System :

Address :

Weir Name :

Description :

Structure:


Type:

Crest



REPORT NO.: 114

WEIR NO. : W709 WEIR Condtion:PoorWeir style:

COMMENTS.... Poor due to no surface access, only partially inspected

ACTION

REQUIRED......

No of Covers.......

Style..........

Open...................

Scured......

Material.............

Vent Stack/Breather..

Material / Type...

Lifter Ring.............

Condition...............

Infiltration.........

Height ................

Surface................

Mounded.............

Person Access.....

Truck Access......

Safe Accessibilty....

Shape............

Size .....................

Material.......

Surcharge...........

Condition.............

From Surface........

Encrustation..........

Location.................

Active......................

Type................

Material.............

Complete............

Condition............

Benching............

Condition............

Joints at Wall.....

Number of Pipes IN.....

No of Pipes OUT..........

Number.................

Material................



Condition...............

Number..............

Type....................


Cleanout.............




mm (ins)

mm (ins)




Safe...................

Floor Material...

Railings.............




m/d/y

WEIR INSPECTION




HLI

FT-MH1003401

Greenwood 2-7

1 12 12 7.0 6 12

2

15/04/2008

Greenwood Ave at Dundas St EField Book 1



WEIR :

Date :

Plan No. :

Trunk System :

Address :

Weir Name :

Description :

Structure:


Type:

Crest


Client : TORONTO Sewer System : HLI Insp. Date : 15/04/2008

REPORT NO.: 025

WEIR NO. : FT-MH1003401 WEIR Condtion:Weir style:

COMMENTS....

ACTION

REQUIRED......


Style.......... 1-2 Holes

Open................... No

Scured...... No



Material / Type...




Height ................

Surface................

Mounded............. No




Shape............ Irregular *

Size .....................

Material....... Brick





Location.................

Active...................... None

Type................ Steps




Benching............ Crown





Number................. None

Material................



Condition...............


Type....................


Cleanout.............




mm (ins)

mm (ins)




Safe...................

Floor Material...

Railings.............


None



m/d/y

WEIR INSPECTION


Appendix I – Modelling Methodology for Combined Sewer Areas

MEMO

WSP Canada Inc.

600 Cochrane Drive

5th Floor

Markham, ON L3R 5K3

www.wspgroup.com

Basement Flooding Remediation and Water Quality Improvement

Master Plan Class EA Study – Area 40 & 34

(Project No. 151-06268-01,151-06268-02)

Modelling Methodology for Combined Sewer Areas- Supplementary

Information

Date: Revised June 8, 2016

The purpose of this memo is to provide a supplementary methodology to the City of Toronto

InfoWorks CS Basement Flooding Model Studies Guideline (Version 1.02) that will be applied

consistently in the Basement Flooding Study areas that involve combined sewer systems

(Study Areas 34, 37, and 40). Outlined are some considerations that must be accounted for

when modelling a combined system:

1. Combined Model Elements

2. Flow Assignments (from combined subcatchment sources to the sewer network)

3. Modelling CSO Structures

4. Perforated Manholes

5. Model Stability

By incorporating the above considerations, the system will be represented in one model that

integrates the interactions between all sewer types (sanitary, storm, and combined) and the

overland flow system.

1. Combined Model Elements

In modelling a combined system in InfoWorks, the following additional elements will be utilized:

• Fictitious nodes (to emulate connected roof leaders)

• Sewer links (to emulate laterals from connected roof leaders to sewer system )

• Overland links (to emulate the surface flow path to street)

The City’s Guideline (pg. 5.6) explains that gully inlet nodes are used to represent flow

restrictions, as defined by an input head-discharge curve. Gullies in the InfoWorks model

represent catchbasins and roof leader inlets, where storm runoff enters the sewer system. Links

with an overland system type are subject to the restrictions applied by the gully (i.e. the head-

2

discharge curve), whereas links with other system types (storm, sanitary and combined) by-

pass the gully and are not subject to these restrictions. This means that, in one node with

different link types, only the overland links are related to the gully.

For every fictitious node added to represent a connected roof leader, two (2) sewer links must

be added:

• A sewer link is added to convey flow from the connected roof leaders to the

sewer, and

• An overland link is added to convey any flows in excess of the roof leader

capacity, which spills overland and drains to the catchbasin in the street (where

the catchbasin is represented by a gully in the model).

A gully must be introduced at the fictitious node to capture the connected roof leader flow; it is

assumed that this connected roof leader has a flow capacity limited to the 5-year storm (approx.

3L/s). This connected roof leader flow will be conveyed directly to the combined sewer, by-

passing the catchbasin (gully) on the street. Flow in excess of the connected roof leader capture

capacity will spill overland to the street and be conveyed through the fictitious overland link to

the catchbasin (gully) on the street. These excess flows, together with the overland flows from

the disconnected roof downspouts and all other surfaces (driveways, grassed areas), will be

captured by the catchbasin (gully) on the streets, and intercepted as follows:

• In streets with only one sewer (combined), the flow will be intercepted by the combined

sewer.

• In streets with two sewers (combined and storm) or three sewers (combined, sanitary,

and storm), the flow will be intercepted by the storm sewer. If catchbasins are still

connected to the combined sewer, they should be reconnected to the storm sewer.

• In streets with local and trunk sewers (combined or storm), the flow will be intercepted by

the local combined or storm sewer.

Flows in excess of the capture capacity of the catchbasins (gullies) on the street will be

conveyed downstream along the streets (using overland flow links) to the next catchbasin, and

so on, until the excess flows reach an overland flow outlet. Wet weather flow from foundation

drains in combined areas is modelled the same as in separated areas.

2. Flow Assignments

This section outlines how flows should be assigned from subcatchment sources to the sewer

network in combined sewer areas. There are three (3) general street/sewer configurations in

combined sewer areas that require separate approaches to flow assignments. In order to

ensure that the areas contributing to the sanitary, combined, and storm sewers do not overlap,

the following flow assignments must be applied in the scenarios listed. In applying this

3

approach, all areas will contribute to the sewer system only once. This is also explained

graphically in the attached appendix.

1. Street with One Sewer – Combined Sewer Only.

� In this case, all captured flows from the sources listed drain to the combined sewer:

� Dry weather flow from properties based on lot fabric and address points is connected

to the combined sewer.

� Wet weather flow (I/I using the RTK method) based on an area defined as a 45m

buffer on either side of the sewer, draining to the combined sewer. This is to account

for foundation drain connections and other infiltration elements from leaky manholes,

pipe cracks, loose joints etc.

o In this case the ‘Inflow’ (or Rapid response) to the system would be

accounted for with the ‘wet weather flow from all other surfaces’, identified

below. It is up to the discretion of the modeler if only the ‘Moderate’ and

‘Slow’ response should be used within the RTK method, identified in section

6.4.2.1 of the Modelling Guideline.

� Wet weather flow from directly connected roofs drains to the combined sewer.

� Wet weather flow from all other surfaces (driveways, grassed areas) including

disconnected roofs, and overflow from connected roofs (excluding the road/street)

drains to the combined sewer via gullies.

� Wet weather flow from the road/street is connected to the combined sewer via

gullies.

2. Street with Two Sewers (Sewer Separation) – Combined (Partial) and Storm Sewer.

� In this case, all captured flows from the sources listed drain to either the combined or

storm sewer:


to the combined sewer.




pipe cracks, loose joints etc. and to be modelled as per section 6.2.1 of the Modelling

Guideline for separated sanitary sewer systems.

� Wet weather flow from directly connected roofs drains to the combined sewer.


disconnected roofs, and overflow from connected roofs (excluding the road/street)

drains to the storm sewer via gullies.

� Wet weather flow from the road/street is connected to the storm sewer via gullies.

3. Street with Three Sewers (Sewer Separation) – Combined (Partial), Sanitary, and Storm

Sewer.

� In this case, all captured flows from the sources listed drain to the sanitary, storm, or

combined system, as described.


to the combined system. However, new developments/infill may be connected to the

sanitary sewer.

4




pipe cracks, loose joints etc. and to be modelled as per section 6.2.1 of the Modelling

Guideline for separated sanitary sewer systems.

o It may be appropriate to reassign a subcatchment area based on the extent

of the new developments/infill to account for I/I (using the RTK method). In

this case, reassign flows from the delineated buffer in the combined sewer

area to the sanitary sewer. Make adjustments so as not to double count the

I/I areas contributing to the combined and sanitary sewers.

� Wet weather flow from directly connected roofs drains to the combined system.

� Wet weather flow from directly connected roofs in new developments/infill drains to

the storm system.


disconnected roofs, and overflow from connected roofs (excluding the road/street) to

the storm system via gullies.

� Wet weather flow from the road/street is connected to the storm system via gullies.

3. Blank Subcatchment Setup for Future Foundation Drain Flows

In the future, the City would like the opportunity to model separately the flows from the building

foundation drains. In order to allow this to be included within future model operation, a blank

subcatchment is to be provided for all areas with a combined sewer. The following outlines the

method to be used to include this blank subcatchment:

1) Create a duplicate of the parcel-based sanitary subcatchments,

2) Include a ‘Total Area’ column in InfoWorks, equal to 10% of the building area

within the subcatchment,

3) Ensure all values under ‘Contributing Area’ are zero (0),

4) Following the naming convention FD_XXX,

5) Identify the blank subcatchments as sanitary within the ‘System Type’ column,

6) Have all RTK parameters for the blank subcatchment set to zero (0), and;

7) Connect each blank subcatchment to the relevant upstream manhole.

• The blank subcatchment is NOT to be used for calibration of the combined system

model currently being developed (in this case, Areas 34, 37, and 40).

• The City may choose to use this blank subcatchment in the future to further

investigate the inflow and infiltration to the system, and/or to identify the impacts of

the foundation drains as a separate flow contribution within the model.

5

• If the consultant identifies an area within their current project that has sufficient flow

monitoring information and an appropriate layout (i.e. combined areas with only one

sewer in the street), that the consultant shall bring this potential application of the

blank subcatchment to the attention of their City project manager. Any utilization of

this blank subcatchment within the Area 34, 35, or 40 models must be approved by

the City.

4. Modelling CSO Structures

The modelling of CSO structures in combined sewersheds is dependent on the field

investigation, as well as all available information in addition to the data provided in the City’s

TWAG database (e.g. details found in as-built drawings, operating rules of the structure, etc.).

A field survey of CSO control structures should be carried out to determine the critical

dimensions and measurements: weir elevation, orifice diameters, incoming and outgoing pipe

locations, inverts, pipe shape and size, etc. The CSO structures are coded in the model

accordingly as weirs and orifices, with physical details that reflect the existing configuration, as

determined in the field investigation. As-built drawings, plan and profile drawings, and all other

available information are used in the event that field investigation information is incomplete or

unavailable.

All components of the overflow structure shall be coded as physically representative as possible

(i.e. exact and no compensation substitutions). Considerations shall be included for head loss

coefficients that need to be adjusted in the model to “behave” as what is physically there (e.g. a

leaping weir). Given the complexity of the overflow structure, the modelling time step cannot be

coarse as is typically used for modelling stormwater systems, thereby requiring the model to be

run in smaller, manageable periods, and the use of statistics templates to extract results.

Appropriate model adjustments (e.g. stage discharge, spill elevation, bypass configuration, etc.)

shall be included in modelling submerged overflow structures during large rain event

simulations.

The model shall be run under dry weather conditions, and then checked to ensure that there is

no overflow at the CSO locations. Under dry weather conditions, all flows generated in the

sewershed should be conveyed to the treatment plant without overflows into relief sewers that

discharge to environment.

5. Perforated Manholes

The perforated manholes are coded into the InfoWorks model similarly to catchbasins, applying

data collected from the perforated manhole field survey. Each perforated manhole is subject to

a head-discharge curve, used to account for inflow into the combined sewer system. The head-

discharge curve applied to perforated manholes is provided on page 5.14 of the City’s modelling

guideline. When there is a combined and storm sewer in the street, with perforated manhole

covers on the combined sewer, interconnect catchbasins of the storm node and the perforated

6

manhole of the combined node with an overland link, and assign a perforated head-discharge

curve to the combined node.

In areas with only a combined sewer, introduce a fictitious node beside the combined node

connected via a fictitious overland flow link and pipe link to the combined sewer system. Assign

a perforated head-discharge curve to the fictitious combined node to account for inflow.

6. Model Stability

When addressing model stability, applying Best Practices beginning in the model build stage is

important. The following practice is suggested to reduce model instability:

• Minimum pipe length: 5 m

• Do test runs using typical parameters (i.e. prior to calibration) to identify any points in

networks that are unstable or cause significant flooding or network water losses. The

cause of such instability may be caused by input outside the range of the model’s

realistic parameters, such as inappropriate loss coefficients, incorrectly sized junction

dimension, incorrect ponding areas or other default parameters in InfoWorks.

Modelers should always be on the lookout for signs of instabilities in the model. Instabilities

cause the following problems (from reference [1]):

If a model has instability problems, the procedure is to first do everything possible to resolve the

problem by making changes to the network. If the problem persists, the next step is adjusting

the Simulation Parameters default settings for the simulation’s maximum number of iterations

and the simulation’s maximum number of time step halving in InfoWorks. A step-by-step

approach should be taken. The time-step in the Schedule Hydraulic Run window should always

be set to 60 seconds. The first step is to run the model using the default conditions. If the model

does not converge, the next step is to increase the simulation’s maximum number of iterations;

this will allow the model to converge and stabilize. If increasing the number of iterations does

7

not help the model converge, increase the simulation’s maximum number of timestep halving.

According to [1], setting the tolerance for initialization and simulation volume balance to 0.005

will help model stability; this will eliminate volume imbalances above the threshold, but will

slightly slow down the simulation.

To summarize the approach to model stability:

1. Set the time-step (in the Schedule Hydraulic Run window) to 60s.

2. Run model using default settings

3. If the model does not converge, increase the simulation’s maximum number of iterations

4. If the model still does not converge, increase the simulation’s maximum number of

timestep halving

Notes:

The head-discharge curves associated with roof leaders for sloped and flat roofs are given in pages 5.25-26 in the

modelling guidelines.

The head-discharge curves for different types of catchbasins are given in pages 5.7-5.15.

Details of the set-up of fictitious node types in the model (either as a manhole or storage node) for roof areas are

given in page 6.8.

Reference [1]: Black & Veatch Wastewater Network Modelling Guide

Criteria for Provision of Level of Service

1. Flood protection criteria:

Any improvement works should not increase the WWF to the combined sewers for all

WWF conditions during the interim and ultimate stages. Opportunities for sewer

separation should be investigated.

The design criteria outlined in page 7.17 of the guideline will be followed in combined

sewer modelling. This section explains that the HGL shall be the same as the storm

system for the 100 year event. Annually, combined sewer overflows must meet the

objectives of MOE Procedure F-5-5 for volumetric control in a typical rainfall year from

April 1 to October 31 in continuous simulations. The typical rainfall year represents an

average rainfall year, not the 100-year design storm.

The storm system criteria in this section of the City’s modelling guideline states:

“…during the 100-year design storm, the maximum HGL in storm sewer (minor)

system shall be maintained at no surcharged conditions, while the overland flow

(major) system shall be maintained within the road allowance and no deeper

than the recommended standard as outlined in the Wet Weather Flow

Management Guidelines, City of Toronto, November 2006. Should it be infeasible

to achieve no surcharge conditions, the maximum HGL shall be maintained

below basement elevations during the 100-year design storm.”

The RFP however states the following in page 22 of 179:

8

“Design criteria shall be the City’s 100-year design storm. The maximum HGL in the

storm sewer (minor) system shall be maintained below basement elevations (1.8

m below the ground elevation) during the 100-year design storm. If it is not

feasible to maintain the maximum HGL at below basement, e.g. shallow storm

sewer system of which the crown of the sewer is less than 1.8 m below ground

elevation, the required level of protection shall be no surcharge condition.”

To summarize, the following approach will be taken (based on the RFP):

o Deep sewers:

� The maximum HGL shall be maintained below 1.8 m ground elevation(basement level)

o Shallow sewers:

� The no surcharge condition must be maintained

2. Water quality protection criteria:

Water quality criteria are to be addressed on two platforms: the MOECC’s F-5-5 and the

City of Toronto’s WWFMP. The F-5-5 applies specifically to CSOs, while the WWFMP

enforces water quality measures to reduce and eliminate adverse impacts of wet

weather flow to the built and natural environments and improve watershed health.

� MOECC F-5-5 Criteria

The guidelines of the MOECC’s Procedure F-5-5: determination of treatment

requirements for municipal and private combined and partially separated sewer

systems shall be followed. There will be no increases to volumes above the

existing levels in any CSO outfall structures, as outlined in the volumetric capture

criteria from the F-5-5 section 6.(g) in a typical rainfall year:

“During a seven-month period commencing within 15 days of April 1,

capture and treat for an average year all the dry weather flow plus 90% of

the volume resulting from wet weather flow that is above the dry weather

flow. The volumetric control criterion is applied to the flows collected by

the sewer system immediately above each overflow location unless it can

be shown through modelling and on-going monitoring that the criterion is

being achieved on a system-wide basis. No increases in CSO volumes

above existing levels at each outfall will be allowed except where the

increase is due to the elimination of upstream CSO outfalls. During the

remainder of the year, at least the same storage and treatment capacity

should be maintained for treating wet weather flow. ”

The RFP states the following in page 23 of 179:

“For study areas with combined sewer systems, treating combined sewer

overflows at CSO locations to achieve the Ministry of the Environment and

Climate Changes’ Procedure F-5-5 (i.e. during a seven-month period from

April to October in an average rainfall year, for 50% of the time, capture

and treat 90% of the wet weather flow that is above the dry weather flow,

9

to 30% BOD and 50% TSS reduction, whereas the TSS concentration should

not exceed 90 mg/L).”

This should be modified as follows to be consistent with the MOECC’s F-5-5 guidelines for combined sewer overflow structures:

During the 7 month period from April to October in an average rainfall year capture and treat 90% of the wet weather flow that is above the dry weather flow, to 30% BOD and 50% TSS reduction (primary treatment level). If the above volumetric criteria could not be achieved by sending the flow to the treatment plant, satellite treatment facilities should be provided. For the satellite treatment facilities the effluent TSS concentration should not exceed 90 mg/L for 50% of the time during the seven month period of the average year.

� City of Toronto WWFMP Criteria

As outlined in the RFP, water quality solutions must be consistent with the City of

Toronto’s 2003 WWFMP, addressing the voluntary and enhanced levels of wet

weather flow control (25- and 100-year implementation plans, respectively).

3. In order to successfully achieve the flooding and water quality criteria outlined in the

points listed above, the approach outlined in the following section can be followed.

10

Approach to Design Criteria

� Basement/Surface Flooding

1. Using the developed InfoWorks model for the 100-year design storm, establish the HGL and surcharge state in the combined and storm sewer systems under existing conditions.

2. Identify the potential problem areas and bottlenecks in the sewer system for the 100-year design storm. Propose basement and surface flooding control remediation measures to the combined and storm sewer systems to alleviate sewer surcharge, and to lower the HGL to a depth greater than 1.8 m below ground elevation (potential basement elevation). The overland flow depth must be maintained within the street right-of-way, i.e. 300 mm above road gutter elevation.

� MOECC F-5-5

3. Run the existing model to check the volume and frequency of overflows at the CSO structures under existing conditions for the typical year rainfall. The average year 1991-storm during the 7-month period from April to October should be applied to this simulation.

4. Repeat Step 3, using the model that includes the implementation of flood control remediation measures. Determine if there are any increases or decreases in the volume and/or frequency of spills for the typical year rainfall.

5. Provide and size control measures to mitigate increases in CSO spill volume and frequency if such is identified by the modelling of the ultimate condition (i.e. with implementation of flood control measures). There will be no increases in CSO overflow volumes following the implementation of basement and surface flooding remediation measures for the typical year rainfall.

� City of Toronto WWFMP

6. Use the average year 1991-storm to perform a continuous simulation during the 7-month period from April to October, generate a time series of flows (hydrographs) at the combined and storm sewer outfalls under existing conditions.

7. To be consistent with the 2003 WWFMP study, use the Event Mean Concentration (EMC) values of the four water quality parameters/pollutants for each land use: Total Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids, Total Copper and E. coli from the WWFMP.

8. Using the EMC values from Step 7, calculate the pollutant concentration for the study area land use mix, and together with the flow hydrograph time series from Step 6, generate pollutographs to quantify the concentration and total loadings of the pollutants at the storm and combined outfalls under existing conditions.

9. Repeat Step 8, using the model that includes the implementation of flood control and CSO control remediation measures.

11

10. Implement various alternatives of source control, conveyance control, and end-of-pipecontrol measures, as stipulated in the 2003 WWFMP, to achieve water qualityimprovements at the storm outfalls and overflow from CSO structures. Establish (inSteps 11 and 12) two modelling scenarios to quantify for water quality improvements:

a. Voluntary level of wet weather flow control (25-year implementation plan) that willachieve moderate levels of enhancement to water quality parameters

b. Enhanced level of wet weather flow control (100-year implementation plan) thatwill achieve significant levels of enhancement to water quality parameters

11. Repeat Steps 6 and 8 for the Voluntary level of wet weather flow control using the modelthat includes the implementation of flood control and CSO control remediationmeasures.

12. Repeat Steps 6 and 8 for the Enhanced level of wet weather flow control using themodel that includes the implementation of flood control and CSO control remediationmeasures.

Summary

In summary, the approach requires:

• Proposing remediation measures to alleviate surface and basement flooding in the studyarea;

• Providing remediation measures to mitigate increases of existing CSO overflowfrequency and volumes from implementation of flood control measures; and

• Implementing the remedial measures identified in the WWFMP in a hierarchical form- with source controls considered first, followed by conveyance control measures then theend-of-pipe control measures.

Four separate model scenarios will result from the approach outlined in this section:

1. An existing model2. A model that includes remediation for basement/surface flooding and CSO control

measures3. A model that includes remediation for basement/surface flooding and CSO control

measures, as well as the voluntary level of water quality treatment4. A model that includes remediation for basement/surface flooding and CSO control

measures, as well as the enhanced level of water quality treatment

Appendix J – ArcGIS Shape File Data Format for Recommended Works

BFPP Project list Geodatabase Template

The purpose of following this template is to keep the same format of project list Geodatabase which EA consultant delivers as the format of the City's master geodatabase file. The sample of the geodatabase is in the attachment.

The geodatabase preparation instructions:

For linear project list:

Please note that all the sewer linear works, ICD and High Flow Inlet CB and bioswale works will be listed in this layer shown in polyline.

1. All the field in the sample database should be created, but only mandatory fields should be filled in. These mandatory fields arerequired to fill in as shown below.

2. The field and type of the field should be kept the same as the sample.

3. More details on how to fill in the mandatory fields.

• "PRO_NUM" refers to assignment ID which is the ID in the City's contract, but not the EA recommended project ID. In other

word, it is the ID after project re-group by calculation of cost per benefitting home.

• "RECOMMENDATION" refers to the EA remediation project ID the same as the ID used in the conceptual design prior to re-

group. Each EA remediation project or each proposed sewer segment should be listed which they could be under the same

project ID. Therefore there will have multi row under the same "PRO_NUM" too.

• "ASSET_ID" Please use the same MH ID as the sewer asset ID in TWAG the City provided if the proposed linear project is to

replace or upgrade the existing asset.

• If there is a new linear asset proposed, please provide the new asset ID as shown here, for an example: "NEW_BF_190301". All

the new asset ID must start from "NEW_BF". Then for "1903" should use the digits from "PRO_NUM" like "19-03". The rest digits

are free to assign.

• If there is a new ICD or High Capacity Inlet CB proposed, please provide the new asset ID as shown here, for an example:

"NEW_BF__CB_190301". All the new CB asset ID must start from "NEW_BF_CB". Then for "1903" should use the digits from

"PRO_NUM" like "19-03". The rest digits are free to assign.

• If there is a new bio-swale proposed, please provide the new asset ID as shown here, for an example:

"NEW_BF__BIO_190301". All the new asset ID must start from "NEW_BF_BIO". Then for "1903" should use the digits from

"PRO_NUM" like "19-03". The rest digits are free to assign.

• "P_ Length" refers to the total length under the same "PROJ_NUM", not the individual project length in each row.

• "EA ESTIMAT" refers to the total EA cost under the same "PROJ_NUM". It could be use this to calculate the cost per benefitting

home. This cost should not include the cost for water quality solution.

• "Cost_ Per _ Home" refers to cost per benefitting home. The field value should be the same under the same "PROJ_NUM".

• "Number _of _Benefitting Homes" refers to number of benefiting home. The field value should be the same under the same

"PROJ_NUM".

Note: The above "Cost_per_home" and "Number_of_Benefitting Homes" is referring to the value in the shape file. However for

individual EA remediation solutions prior to re-grouping, the value for "Cost_per_home" and "Number_of_Benefitting Homes" will be

documented in the spreadsheet in the EA final project file, not in this shapefile.

For storage project list:

1. All the field in the sample database should be created, but only mandatory fields should be filled in. These mandatory fields are required to fill in as shown below.

2. The other requirements should be the same as the above for the linear projects except "BF_ID".

"BF_ID" refers to the EA remediation project ID the same as the ID used in the conceptual design.

Appendix K – Sample Table of Contents

Sample Table of Contents - Technical Memorandum #1 1. Introduction

1.1 Technical Memorandum # 1 Organization

2. Data Collection 2.1 Group 1 Data

2.1.1 Land Use Classification 2.1.2 Population 2.1.3 Water Consumption/Billing Records 2.1.4 Physical Sewer Network Data 2.1.5 Aerial/Ortho Photography 2.1.6 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and Topographical Mapping 2.1.7 Historical Basement Flooding Complaints (Hansen Records)

2.2 Group 2 Data 2.2.1 Previous Reports and Studies 2.2.2 Historic Operation/Maintenance Records 2.2.3 CCTV Records for the Past 5 Years 2.2.4 Smoke Test and Dye Test Results 2.2.5 Sewer System Design Criteria (Currently and at the Time of Construction) 2.2.6 Natural Surface Water Drainage Prior to Development 2.2.7 Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Information 2.2.8 Sewer System Improvements 2.2.9 New and Planned Developments in the Study Area 2.2.10 Foundation Drain Connections 2.2.11 City’s Downspout Disconnection Program 2.2.12 Flood Elevation Mapping and Natural Heritage Information

3. Field Survey and Investigation Program 3.1 Methodology 3.2 Downspout Connectivity 3.3 Lot Grading 3.4 Reverse-Sloped Driveways 3.5 Catchbasins 3.6 Surface Drainage 3.7 Control Structure Inspection 3.8 Property Owner/Residential Questionnaires

4. Storm Sewer System Assessment 4.1 System Characteristics and Storm Drainage Boundary 4.2 Data Gaps

5. Sanitary Sewer System Assessment 5.1 Sanitary Sewer Characteristics and Sanitary Drainage Area 5.2 Data Gaps

6. Preliminary Assessment of Basement Flooding Causes

7. Summary

Appendices Appendix A Hydrogeological Desktop Review Appendix B Data Gap Analysis Appendix C Outfall Field Survey Appendix D Sample Residential and ICI Drain Cards

Sample Table of Contents - Technical Memorandum #1

Tables Table 2.1. Land Use Area Table 2.2. 2011 Population Table 2.3. Water Consumption Table 2.4 Wastewater Production Table 2.5. Reference Reports, Studies and Datasets Relevant to Area <xx> Table 2.6. Sewer System Improvements Table 2.7. New and Planned Developments Table 2.8. Service Card Sewer Connections Table 3.1. Lot Grading Table 3.2. Catchbasin Survey Table B1. Storm Sewer Line Data Gaps Table B2. Storm Manhole Data Gaps Table B3. Sanitary Sewer Line Data Gaps Table B4. Sanitary Manhole Data Gaps

Figures 1.1 Study Area Overview 2.1 Land Use Classification 2.2 2011 Population Data 2.3 Projected Population Data (2041) 2.4 Water Bill Records 2.5 Sanitary Network 2.6 Storm Network 2.7 Ortho Photography 2.8 Digital Elevation Model Topography 2.9 Historic Basement Flooding 2.10 Sanitary Sewer Flushing Areas 2.11 Sanitary CCTV Inspections 2.12 Storm CCTV Inspections 2.13 Historic Water Courses 2.14 Sanitary Improvement Works 2.15 Storm Improvement Works 2.16 New and Planned Developments 2.17 Service Connection Records Requested 2.18 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Regulation Limit 3.1 Residential Downspout Connectivity 3.2 ICI Downspout Connectivity 3.3 Lot Grading Classification 3.4 Reverse Slope Driveway 3.5 Surveyed Catchbasin Locations 3.6 Surveyed Catchbasin Types (1 of 3) 3.7 Surveyed Catchbasin Types (2 of 3) 3.8 Surveyed Catchbasin Types (3 of 3) 3.9 Large Parking Area Catchbasins 3.10 Low Lying Area Survey 3.11 Sag Catchbasin Locations 3.12 Surveyed Outfall Locations 3.13 Hansen Database and Questionnaire Response Flood Sources 3.14 Hansen database flood cause findings 3.15 Hansen database and questionnaire response flood cause overview 3.16 Questionnaire response flood cause findings 4.1 Storm Sewer System Overview 4.2 Storm Sewerline Size Summary 4.3 Storm Sewer Age 4.4. Storm System Age Summary 4.5 Overland Storm Flows


4.6 Overland Street Flow 4.7 Storm Sewer System Data Gaps 5.1 Sanitary Sewerline Size Summary 5.2 Sanitary Sewer System Overview 5.3 Sanitary Sewer Age 5.4 Sanitary Sewer Age Distribution 5.5 Sanitary Sewer System Data Gaps 7.1 Composite Study Area Plan (1 of 3) 7.2 Composite Study Area Plan (2 of 3) 7.3 Composite Study Area Plan (3 of 3)

Appendix A - Geotechnical Figures G1 Physiography G2 Surficial Geology G3 Cross Section A-A’ G4 Cross Section B-B’ G5 Cross Section C-C’ G6 Cross Section D-D’ G7 Area <xx> General Regional Geological Stratigraphy G8 Depth to Groundwater G9 Groundwater Interactions with Sanitary Sewers G10 Groundwater Interactions with Storm Sewers


1. Introduction 1.1 Technical Memorandum No. 2 Organization

2. Flow Survey Data 2.1 Rain Gauge Locations 2.2 Flow Monitor Locations

3. Data Analysis 3.1 Rain Gauge Analysis

3.1.1 Storm Selection for Calibration 3.2 Flow Monitor Performance Evaluation 3.3 Sanitary Flow Monitoring Analysis

3.3.1 Dry-Weather Flows 3.3.2 Wet-Weather Flows

3.4 Storm Flow Monitoring Analysis

4. Summary and Recommendations 4.1 Summary 4.2 Additional Flow Monitoring Recommendations 4.3 Next Steps

Tables 2.1 Storm flow monitoring area composition 2.2 Sanitary flow monitoring area composition 3.1 Rainfall event summary for RG-X 3.2 Flow monitoring data quality, calibrated using RG-X 3.3 Summary of dry weather flow analysis – inflow and infiltration in the sanitary network 3.4 Sanitary system wet weather storm response analysis 3.5 Storm system wet weather storm response analysis 4.1 Data suitability for Modelling Guideline and RFP calibration & validation requirements 4.2 Overview of proposed flow monitoring

Figures 2.1 Rain gauge locations 2.2 Flow monitor overview 2.3 Storm flow monitor locations 2.4 Sanitary flow monitor locations 3.1 Storms recorded by rain gauges during the flow monitoring period 3.2 Rain gauge X depth recordings for selected calibration events 3.3 Typical dry weather flow 3.4 Average diurnal profile for flow monitor SAN-X 3.5 Average diurnal profile for flow monitor SAN-X 3.6 Average diurnal profile for flow monitor SAN-X 3.7 Average diurnal profile for flow monitor SAN-X 3.8 Average diurnal profile for flow monitor SAN-X 4.1 Proposed storm flow monitoring locations 4.2 Proposed sanitary flow monitoring locations

Appendices A Spatial variation checks for rain gauges and selected storm events B Rain gauge and flow monitoring plots C Full flow survey period flow data analysis with scatter graphs and rainfall IDF comparison D Modified scatter graphs E Sanitary dry weather flow analysis


1. Introduction 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Technical Memorandum No. 3 Organization

2. Correlated Causes of Basement Flooding 2.1 Overview and Findings from the Hansen Database 2.2 Overview and Findings from the Questionnaire Results 2.3 Problem Areas 2.4 Assessment of Shallow Storm and Sanitary Sewers

3. Modelling Plan 3.1 Data Gaps and Assumptions 3.2 File Management and Delivery

3.2.1 Model Software Version 3.2.2 Catchment Group Hierarchy 3.2.3 Coordinate System 3.2.4 Networks 3.2.5 Nodes Reference 3.2.6 Conduits Reference 3.2.7 Subcatchments Reference 3.2.8 Data Flags 3.2.9 Delivery

3.3 Model Network Development Plan 3.3.1 Storm Sewer System 3.3.2 Sanitary Sewer System 3.3.3 Physical Network

3.4 Boundary Conditions 3.4.1 Upstream Boundary Condition 3.4.2 Downstream Boundary Conditions

3.5 Model Calibration, Validation and Performance Analysis Plan 3.5.1 Storm Sewer System 3.5.2 Sanitary Sewer System 3.5.3 Performance Analysis 3.5.4 Model Stability

3.6 Alternative Analysis Plan. 3.6.1 Storm Sewer System 3.6.2 Sanitary Sewer System

4. Summary and Next Steps 4.1 Overview of Causes of Basement Flooding 4.2 Modelling Plan 4.3 Next Steps

Appendices Appendix A Reverse Sloped Driveway Examples Appendix B Storm Sewer System

Tables Table 2.1: Flood causes in problem areas Table 3.1. Data Gaps and Resolutions Table 3.2. Network naming conventions (excerpt from the Modelling Guidelines) Table 3.3. InfoWorks Standard Data Flags (excerpt from the Modelling Guidelines) Table 3.4. Storm sewer criticality Table 3.5. Model Elements Table 3.6. Roughness factors


Table 3.7. Runoff parameters (excerpt from the Modelling Guidelines) Table 3.8. Model elements for sanitary sewer system Table 3.9 Runoff surface parameters Table 3.10. InfoWorks CS soil parameters

Figures Figure 2.1. Hansen database and questionnaire response floodwater sources Figure 2.2. Hansen database flood cause findings Figure 2.3. Hansen database and questionnaire response flood cause overview Figure 2.4. Questionnaire response flood cause findings Figure 2.5. Questionnaire response connected downspouts Figure 2.6. Questionnaire response sump pumps Figure 2.7. Questionnaire response backwater valves Figure 2.8. Flooding overview Figure 2.9. Flood cluster key map Figure 2.10. Flood Cluster Detail 1 Figure 2.11. Flood Cluster Detail 2 Figure 2.12. Flood Cluster Detail 3 Figure 2.13. Flood Cluster Detail 4 Figure 2.14. Flood Cluster Detail 5 Figure 2.15. Flood Cluster Detail 6 Figure 2.16. Shallow Sanitary Sewer System Figure 2.17. Shallow Storm Sewer System Figure 3.1. Catchment group hierarchy Figure 3.2. Model coordinate system Figure 3.3. Dual drainage concept Figure 3.4. Extent of storm model network Figure 3.5. Data rectification priority (excerpt from the Modelling Guidelines) Figure 3.6. Overland channel cross sections (excerpt from the Modelling Guidelines) Figure 3.7. Swale Representation - A) Conceptual Graphic Showing Swale B) Plan in InfoWorks C) Google Street View Figure 3.8. Subcatchment modelling approach (excerpt from the Modelling Guidelines) Figure 3.9. Subcatchment model schematic in InfoWorks (excerpt from the Modelling Guidelines) Figure 3.10. RTK unit hydrography method (excerpt from the Modelling Guidelines) Figure 3.11. Extent of sanitary model network Figure 3.12. Sample sanitary subcatchment delineation


(Sample 1)

1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Technical Memorandum #4 Organization

2. Overview of the Model Development 2.1 General 2.2 Modelling Objectives 2.3 InfoWorks Model 2.4 General Model Structure

2.4.1 Model Settings for Roof Areas 2.4.2 Modelling Flow for Connected House and ICI Roofs

2.5 Data Sources and Compilation

3. Storm System Model Development 3.1 Description of Storm Drainage System 3.2 Model Development

3.2.1 Network Data • Minor System • Major System – Overland Flow

3.2.2 Rainfall and Flow Monitoring Data 3.3 Model Calibration and Validation

3.3.1 Calibration/Validation Using Monitoring Events 3.3.2 Calibration/Validation Using Historic Storm Events

3.4 Assessment of Storm System Hydraulic Performance 3.4.1 Design Event 3.4.2 Existing Level of Service

4. Sanitary System Model Development 4.1 Description of Sanitary Sewer System 4.2 Sewer Improvements 4.3 Model Development

4.3.1 Network Data 4.3.2 Flow Monitoring Data 4.3.3 Catchment Delineation 4.3.4 Wastewater Flow Generation 4.3.5 Rainfall-Derived Inflow/Infiltration Parameters

4.4 Model Calibration and Validation 4.4.1 Dry Weather Calibration 4.4.2 Wet Weather Calibration/Validation 4.4.3 Calibration/Validation Using Historic Events

4.5 Assessment of Sanitary System Hydraulic Performance 4.5.1 Design Events 4.5.2 Existing Level of Service

5. Summary and Problem Identification 5.1 Summary of Storm Drainage and Sanitary System Hydraulic Performance

5.1.1 Storm System 5.1.2 Sanitary System

5.2 Model Limitations and Application 5.3 Identification of Problem Areas 5.4 Factors Contributing to Flooding

Sample Table of Contents - Technical Memorandum #4 (Sample 1)

List of Tables Table 3-1 Model Setting and Parameters for the Storm Sewer System Table 3-2 Summary of Rainfall Events for Rain Gauge <xxx> Table 3-3 Summary of Peak Flow Rates and Volumetric Runoff Coefficients for Storm Sewer Flow Monitoring in Area <xx> Table 3-7 Summary of Runoff Coefficients for Calibration for Area <xx> Table 3-11 Storm Sewer System Calibration for the <xxxx> Storm Event for Area <xx> Table 3-15 Historical Storm Events Rainfall Depths and Intensities Table 3-16 Summary of Runoff Coefficients for Calibrated/Validation for Area <xx> Table 4-1 Dry Weather Flow (DWF) Generation Parameters for Area <xx> Table 4-5 Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Generation Parameters for Area <xx> Table 4-9 Flow Data – DWF Model Calibration for Area <xx> Table 4-13 RTK Parameters for Model Calibration for Area <xx> Table 4-17 Flow Data – WWF Model Calibration for Area <xx> Table 4-21 RTK Parameters for Model Calibration/Validation for Area <xx> Table 5-1 Specific Causes of Flooding

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Map of Study Area Figure 2.1 Simulation of Connected Roof Downspouts Figure 3.1 Storm Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 3.2 Overland Flow Pattern Area <xx> Figure 3.3 Head Discharge Relationships for Catchbasins Figure 3.4 Typical Local Street Cross-Section Figure 3.5 Typical Collector Street Cross-Section Figure 3.6 Area <xx> Storm Flow Monitoring Locations and Areas Figure 3.7 May 12, 2000 Storm - Overland Flow System Area <xx> Figure 3.8 August 19, 2005 Storm - Overland Flow System Area <xx> Figure 3.9 July 8, 2013 Storm - Overland Flow System Area <xx> Figure 3.10 May 12, 2000 Storm - Storm Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 3.11 August 19, 2005 Storm - Storm Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 3.12 July 8, 2013 Storm - Storm Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 3.13 Shallow Storm Sewers Area <xx> Figure 3.14 2-Year Design Storm - Storm Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 3.15 5-Year Design Storm - Storm Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 3.16 100-Year Design Storm - Storm Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 3.17 2-Year Design Storm - Overland Flow System Area <xx> Figure 3.18 5-Year Design Storm - Overland Flow System Area <xx> Figure 3.19 100-Year Design Storm - Overland Flow System Area <xx> Figure 4.1 Sanitary Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 4.2 Area <xx> Sanitary Flow Monitoring Locations and Areas Figure 4.3 May 12, 2000 Storm – Sanitary Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 4.4 August 19, 2005 Storm – Sanitary Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 4.5 July 8, 2013 Storm – Sanitary Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 4.6 Shallow Sanitary Sewers Area <xx> Figure 4.7 2-Year Design Storm - Sanitary Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 4.8 5-Year Design Storm - Sanitary Sewer System Area <xx> Figure 4.9 May 12, 2000 Oriole Yard Design Storm - Sanitary Sewer System Area <xx>

Appendices Appendix A Results of Storm Sewer Model Calibration and Validation Appendix B Results of Sanitary Sewer Model Calibration and Validation Appendix C Profiles for the Flooded Areas


(Sample 2)

1. Introduction 1.1 OBJECTIVES 1.2 STUDY AREA 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

2. Storm Drainage System Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Development 2.1 OVERVIEW 2.2 METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 Storm Sewer Network 2.2.2 Overland Flow Path Definition 2.2.3 Surface Inlets 2.2.4 Subcatchment Delineation 2.2.5 Subcatchment Runoff Surface Hydrology 2.2.6 Coding of Roofs 2.2.7 Large Parking Lots 2.2.8 Reverse Driveways 2.2.9 Rear Yard Catchbasins 2.2.10 External Areas 2.2.11 Storm Outfall Boundary Conditions

2.3 STORM SYSTEM CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION 2.3.1 Approach 2.3.2 Applicable Flow Monitors 2.3.3 Applicable Rain Data 2.3.4 Storm Calibration Results 2.3.5 Validation to Historic Events

3. Sanitary Sewer System Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Development 3.1 OVERVIEW 3.2 METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 Sanitary Sewer Network 3.2.2 Subcatchments 3.2.3 Dry Weather Sewage Generation Input 3.2.4 Wet Weather Infiltration and Inflow 3.2.5 Sanitary Boundary Conditions

3.3 SANITARY SYSTEM CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION 3.3.1 Calibration Challenges 3.3.2 Applicable Flow Monitors 3.3.3 Selection of Suitable Dry Weather Days 3.3.4 Dry Weather Calibration and Validation 3.3.5 Selection of Suitable Rainfall Event 3.3.6 Wet Weather Calibration and Validation 3.3.7 Validation to Historic Extreme Events

4. Interaction of the Storm Drainage and Sanitary Models

5. Storm Drainage / Sanitary System Baseline Assessment 5.1 MODEL LIMITATIONS AND APPLICATION 5.2 METHODOLOGY

5.2.1 Level of Service Criteria 5.2.2 Rainfall Events 5.2.3 Boundary Conditions

5.3 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 5.4 SANITARY SYSTEM


6. Causes, Mechanisms and Risks of Surface / Basement Flooding 6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS 6.2 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO FLOODING 6.3 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Open Channel Manning’s Roughness Table 2.2: Runoff Surfaces Table 2.3: Initial Runoff Parameters Table 2.4: Typical Horton Infiltration Parameters Table 2.5: Storm Outfall Boundary Conditions – East Don River Table 2.6: 2014 Storm Flow Monitors for Calibration Table 2.7: 2014 Storm Calibration Rainfall Events (RG-X) Table 2.8: Storm Calibration Results Table 2.9: Calibrated “Small Event” Runoff Parameters Table 2.10: Comparison of Extreme Rainfall Events (RG-X) Table 2.11: Calibrated “Large Event” Runoff Parameters Table 3.1: Sanitary Boundary Conditions Table 3.2: 2014 Sanitary Flow Monitors for Calibration Table 3.3: 2014 Dry Weather Days Table 3.4: Dry Weather Flow Parameters Table 3.5: Dry Weather Calibration/Validation Results Table 3.6: Wet Weather Calibration/Validation Rainfall Events Table 3.7: Wet Weather R-T-K Parameters Table 3.8: Wet Weather Calibration/Validation Results Table 4.1: Interaction of the Storm and Sanitary Models Table 5.1: Permissible Depths for Submerged Objects

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Study Area Figure 2.1: Model Approach Schematic Figure 2.2: Modeled Storm System Figure 2.3: Coding of Overland Spill Locations Figure 2.4: Modeled Overland System Figure 2.5: Typical Road Cross-Sections Figure 2.6: Defined Catchbasin Inlet Rating Curves Figure 2.7: Gully Node Type Distribution Figure 2.8: Theoretical Storm Subcatchment Delineation Figure 2.9: Storm Subcatchment Delineation with Roofs Figure 2.10: Schematic Connected Roof Coding in InfoWorks Figure 2.11: Assumed Sloped Roof Downspout Relationship Figure 2.12: Assumed Flat Roof Downspout Relationship Figure 2.13: Don River Boundary Condition Figure 2.14: Storm Calibration Flow Monitor Locations Figure 2.15: Storm Validation - May 2000 Overland & HGL Figure 2.16: Storm Validation - August 2005 Overland & HGL Figure 2.17: Storm Validation - July 2013 Overland & HGL Figure 3.1: Sanitary Model Network and Subcatchments Figure 3.2: Sanitary Calibration Flow Monitor Locations Figure 3.3: Sanitary May 12, 2000 Validation Figure 3.4: Sanitary August 19, 2005 Validation Figure 4.1: Integrated Storm and Sanitary Results - May 2000 Figure 4.2: Integrated Storm and Sanitary Results - August 2005 Figure 5.1: Definition of Flooding in Separated Sewer Systems Figure 5.2: City of Toronto Harmonized IDF Parameters


Figure 5.3: Storm Model Overland Results - 100 Year Design Figure 5.4: Storm Model Sewer Results - 100 Year Design Figure 5.5: Sanitary Model Sewer Results - May 2000 Figure 6.1: Factors Contributing to Flooding

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A InfoWorks Model Appendix B Storm Calibration and Validation Appendix C Sanitary Calibration and Validation Appendix D Boundary Conditions

Sample Table of Contents - Project File Report

Executive Summary Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

2. STUDY OVERVIEW 2.1 Description of Study Area 2.2 Scope of Study 2.3 Problem Identification

3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 3.1 The Environmental Assessment

3.1.1 Public Consultation 3.1.2 Public Notification 3.1.3 Public Open House #1 3.1.4 Public Open House #2 3.1.5 Councillor Briefings 3.1.6 Website

3.2 Agency Consultation 3.3 First Nations Consultation 3.4 Notice of Completion

4. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 Site Conditions 4.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Systems 4.3 Socio-Economic Environment

4.3.1 Land Use Classification 4.3.2 Population

4.4 Physical and Natural Environment 4.4.1 Topography, Physiography and Geology 4.4.2 Hydrogeology and Groundwater Level 4.4.3 Vegetation 4.4.4 Natural Heritage and Archaeological Potential

4.5 Stormwater Quality Assessment

5. FILE AND FIELD DATA COLLECTION 5.1 File Data Collection and Review

5.1.1 Group 1 Data 5.1.2 Group 2 Data

5.2 Field Investigation 5.2.1 Field Survey 5.2.2 Catchbasin Survey 5.2.3 Inspection of Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Holes Covers 5.2.4 Storm Sewer Outfall Inspection

5.3 Rainfall and Flow Monitoring Data Analysis

6. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEMS 6.1 General 6.2 Description of Existing Systems

6.2.1 Sanitary Sewer System 6.2.2 Storm Sewer System 6.2.3 Overland Flow System

6.3 Model Development 6.3.1 Sanitary Sewer System Model Setting 6.3.2 Storm Drainage Sewer System Model Setting 6.3.3 Overland Flow System Model Setting

6.4 Model Calibration/Validation

Sample Table of Contents – Project File Report

6.4.1 Sanitary Sewer System Model • Dry Weather Calibration/Validation • Wet Weather Calibration/Validation • Validation Using Historic Events

6.4.2 Storm Drainage Sewer System Model • Model Calibration and Validation • Validation Using Historic Storm Events

6.5 Assessment of Existing Systems 6.5.1 Sanitary Sewer System

• Design Storm Events • Existing Level of Service

6.5.2 Storm Drainage System • Design Events • Existing Level of Service

6.6 Problem Identification 6.6.1 Summary of Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Systems 6.6.2 Model Assumptions and Application 6.6.3 Identification of Problem Areas 6.6.4 Factors Contributing to Flooding

6.7 Stormwater Quality Evaluation Methodology

7. DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SURFACE AND BASEMENT FLOODING REMEDIAL MEASURES

7.1 Development and Screening of Alternative Remedial Measures 7.2 Level of Protection 7.3 Development of Study Alternatives 7.4 Sizing of Alternatives

8. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES, SURFACE AND BASEMENT FLOODING REMEDIAL MEASURES

8.1 Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Systems 8.2 Evaluation of Alternatives 8.3 Conclusions

9. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES, STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL

9.1 Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan 9.2 Development of Control Measures

9.2.1 Source Control Measures 9.2.2 Conveyance Control Measures 9.2.3 End-of-Pipe Control Measures 9.2.4 Management/Operational Practices

9.3 Evaluation of Control Measures

10. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Surface and Basement Flooding Remedial Measures

10.1.1 General Remedial Measures 10.1.2 Sanitary Sewer System 10.1.3 Storm Drainage System

10.2 Storm Water Quality Control Measures

11. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 11.1 Achieving Level of Protection Criteria 11.2 Impact on Downstream Sewer System 11.3 Improving Stormwater Quality 11.4 Future 2031 Population and 450 Lpcd Test

12. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT AND AGENCY CONCERNS 12.1 Traffic 12.2 Noise and Vibration 12.3 Sedimentation


12.4 Trees 12.5 Restoration

13. COST ESTIMATES AND SEQUENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION 13.1 Unit Cost Estimate 13.2 Total Preliminary Cost Estimates, Surface and Basement Flooding Measures 13.3 Total Preliminary Cost Estimate, Stormwater Quality Control Measures 13.4 Sequence of Implementation

14. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14.1 Conclusions 14.2 Recommendations

List of Tables Table 4-1 Land Use Classification Table 5-1 Number of Reported Basement Flooding Events Table 6-1 Model Setting and Parameters for the Storm Sewer System Table 6-2 Flow Data – DWF Calibration Table 6-3 RTK Parameters for Calibration/Validation Table 6-4 Summary of Runoff Coefficients for Calibration/Validation Table 6-5 Specific Causes of Flooding Table 6-6 Existing EMC Table 7-1 Screening of Alternative Remedial Measures Table 8-1 Evaluation Criteria Table 8-2 Evaluation of Basement Flooding Alternative Measures for the Sanitary System Table 8-3 Evaluation of Basement Flooding Alternative Measures for the Storm Drainage System Table 10-1 Components of Stormwater Quality Control Measures Table 11-1 Percentage Reduction of Existing Total Loading Average Year 1991 Table 11-2 7-Month Volume Comparison of Stormwater Runoff for the Average Year 1991 Table 13-1 Preliminary Estimated Capital Costs – Storm and Sanitary Sewer Systems Table 13-2 Preliminary Cost Estimate – Stormwater Quality Control Measures

List of Figures Figure 2.1 Map of Study Area <xx> Figure 2.2 Location of Historical Flooding Records Figure 3.1 Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process Figure 4.1 Land Use Classification Figure 4.2 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Results Figure 5.1 Sanitary Flow Monitoring Location and Area Figure 5.2 Storm Flow Monitoring Location and Area Figure 6.1 Sanitary Sewer System Figure 6.2 Storm Sewer System Figure 6.3 Overland Flow Pattern Figure 6.4 May 12, 2000-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Sanitary Sewer System Figure 6.5 August 19, 2005-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Sanitary Sewer System Figure 6.6 July 8, 2013-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Sanitary Sewer System Figure 6.7 Shallow Sanitary Sewers Figure 6.8 May 12, 2000-Overland Flow Depth, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.9 August 19, 2005-Overland Flow Depth, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.10 July 8, 2013-Overland Flow Depth, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.11 May 12, 2000-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.12 August 19, 2005-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.13 July 8, 2013-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.14 Shallow Storm Sewers Figure 6.15 2 Year Design Storm-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Sanitary Sewer System Figure 6.16 5 Year Design Storm-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Sanitary Sewer System Figure 6.17 May 12, 2000 Design Storm, Oriole Yard-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State,


Sanitary Sewer System Figure 6.18 2 Year Design Storm-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.19 5 Year Design Storm-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.20 100 Year Design Storm-Depth to Water Level and Max Surcharge State, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.21 2 Year Design Storm-Overland Flow Depth, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.22 5 Year Design Storm-Overland Flow Depth, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.23 100 Year Design Storm- Overland Flow Depth, Storm Sewer System Figure 6.24 Outfall and Contributing Area Figure 10.1 Sanitary Sewer Remediation Measures Figure 10.2 Storm Sewer Remediation Measures Figure 10.3 Stormwater Quality Control Measures Figure 11.1 May 12, 2000 Design Storm, Oriole Yard-Depth to Water Level after Remediation, Sanitary Sewer System Figure 11.2 100-Year Design Storm-Depth to Water Level after Remediation, Storm Sewer System Figure 11.3 100-Year Design Storm-Overland Depth after Remediation, Storm Sewer System

Appendices Appendix A Public Consultation Appendix B Agency Consultation Appendix C Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Appendix D Stormwater Quality Control Appendix E Conceptual Design of Preferred Alternative Attachments: (Under Separate Cover) Attachment 1 Technical Memorandum # 1 – Data Collection and Field Investigation Attachment 2 Technical Memorandum # 2 – Assessment of Storm and Sanitary Sewer Systems

Appendix L – Cost Estimating Tool and Guidelines

CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY

DRAFT NOVEMBER 2016

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4 COST ESTIMATING TOOL & GUIDELINES


Contents

Section Page

Contents ................................................................................................................................................ iii

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and objectives................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Users of cost estimating guidelines ............................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Cost per benefitting household ..................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Industry standards for classification of cost estimates ................................................. 1-3

1.6 Cost estimation tool and guidelines for BFPP4 ............................................................. 1-4

Components and Classes of BFPP4 Cost Estimates .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Classes of BFPP4 cost estimates .................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Components of capital cost ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.2.1 Total capital costs of BFPP4 Projects ............................................................. 2-4

2.2.2 Hard Construction Costs ............................................................................... 2-4

2.2.3 Allowances for Indeterminate (AFI) costs ..................................................... 2-5

2.3 Contingency and Management Reserves ...................................................................... 2-5

2.3.1 Contingency ................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.2 Management Reserves .................................................................................. 2-6

2.4 Property acquisition and easement costs ..................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) ........................................................................................... 2-7

2.6 Cost escalation ................................................................................................................ 2-8

2.7 Base Construction Costs (BC) and Additional Construction Costs (AC) ....................... 2-8

2.8 Cost of additional scope added by other City departments ......................................... 2-8

2.9 Market conditions ........................................................................................................... 2-9

2.10 Role of PTP in Cost Estimation ....................................................................................... 2-9

2.11 Cost Estimate Templates for Project Phases ................................................................. 2-9

2.11.1 Environmental Assessment (Class 4 Estimate) ............................................ 2-10

2.11.2 Preliminary Design (Class 3 Estimate) ......................................................... 2-10

2.11.3 75 % Detailed Design (Class 2 Estimate) ..................................................... 2-10

2.11.4 95% Detailed Design and Issue for Tender (Class 1 Estimate) .................... 2-10

2.12 Risk costs and risk management .................................................................................. 2-14

2.12.1 Risk assessment methods ............................................................................ 2-15

2.12.2 Qualitative risk assessment ......................................................................... 2-15

2.12.3 Quantitative risk assessment ...................................................................... 2-16

2.12.4 Monte Carlo simulation ............................................................................... 2-16

2.12.5 Other issues relevant to quantitative risk assessment ............................... 2-17

2.12.6 Application of the risk management techniques ........................................ 2-18

2.13 Summary of steps in preparing BFPP4 cost estimates ................................................ 2-18

Cost Estimating Database for BFPP4 ................................................................................................. 3-19

3.1 Developing a database of unit rates of BFPP4 construction items ............................ 3-19

3.2 Purpose of the cost estimating database .................................................................... 3-21

iv “THIS DOCUMENT IS ONLY VALID ON 24-NOV-16. ONCE PRINTED THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES NOT CONTROLLED.”

3.3 Updating of the unit cost database ............................................................................. 3-21

Cost Estimating Tool for BFPP4 ......................................................................................................... 4-22

4.1 Components of the cost estimating tool ..................................................................... 4-22

4.2 Cost estimating database ............................................................................................. 4-22

4.3 Basis of Design and Cost Estimate ............................................................................... 4-22

4.4 Cost estimating template ............................................................................................. 4-24

Appendix A Basis of Design and Cost Estimate ........................................................................................ 1

Appendix B Cost Estimating Template ..................................................................................................... 5

Appendix C Database of unit rates of BFPP construction items ............................................................... 6

Appendix D Process for Analysis of Unit Rates ........................................................................................ 7



SECTION 1

Introduction

1.1 Background During the extreme weather event of August 2005, the City of Toronto experienced wide spread surface and basement flooding. In 2006, Toronto City Council passed a resolution that led to the development of the multi-phased Basement Flooding Protection Plan (BFPP) to address the flooding. For purposes of the BFPP, the City has been broken into 67 study areas. The study areas were developed to prioritize projects for implementation of basement flooding protection solutions. The conceptual solutions for flooding are identified through Environmental Assessment (EA) studies completed for these areas. Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the BFPP are already underway. Phase 1 was initiated in 2008, Phase 2 in 2010 and Phase 3 in 2013. In 2015, the City initiated Phase 4, which is a comprehensive 10 year Program to implement basement flooding protection solutions. The goal of BFPP Phase 4 (BFPP4) is to deliver approximately $1 Billion in improvement projects over a 10 year period with a target delivery of $160 M in capital costs per year starting in 2021. City staff depend on accurate cost estimates for budget forecasts and managing cash flow. Reliability of the cost estimate is key to effective cost management and successful implementation of the Program.

1.2 Purpose and objectives During Phases 1 to 3 of the Basement Flooding Protection Program, cost estimating has been a concern for the City. Project capital cost forecasts were made using the solutions identified during the Environmental Assessment (EA) Phase of the project but there was no consistent approach, standards or guidelines for developing the initial conceptual design cost estimates or the subsequent costs estimates developed at the preliminary and detailed design stages. Consultants working on projects were not required to follow any standard method for:

recognizing and accounting for the range of accuracy of a cost estimate as it progressed from the conceptual to the preliminary and detailed design stages.

accounting for known and unknown risks through contingency allowance, reserves and actual calculation of risk costs.

In view of the large size and scope of BFPP Phase 4 a consistent standard and methodology for cost estimation was considered necessary. The scope of work of BFPP4 includes developing a "Cost Estimating Tool and Guidelines" that can be used during the various stages of the project life cycle for reliable and transparent prediction of project costs. The purpose of this cost estimating tool and guideline is to ensure that cost estimates prepared for projects during planning, preliminary design, detailed design and pre-tender are based on uniform and consistent standards and guidelines. The main objectives of these guidelines are:

Define a consistent, uniform and reliable method for developing cost estimates for the basement flooding protection program;

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4 COST ESTIMATING TOOLS & GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION

1-2 “THIS DOCUMENT IS ONLY VALID ON 24-NOV-16. ONCE PRINTED THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES NOT CONTROLLED.”

Define consistent and uniform criteria for identification, definition and estimation of hard construction cost of BFPP4 projects;

Provide a common basis, as well as tools and templates for the development and presentation of cost estimates;

Add rigor to the documentation of assumptions, and factors that influence the scope, schedule and sequencing of a project, degree of complexity, data sources;

Define categories and classes of cost estimate and identify stages in the project life cycle at which estimates are prepared;

Provide guidance on estimation of contingencies and management reserves, taxes, and adjustment of costs to account for project complexity and/or degree of difficulty in implementation due to technological, permitting, land acquisition, public involvement and other issues and risks;

Develop a database of unit rates for the BFPP standard schedule of items based on review of historic bid data and the City’s Project Tracking Portal (PTP) classification of construction cost items (new items to be added as required).

Better alignment EA cost estimates that are used to setup BFPP4 capital budgets, the PD cost estimates and the construction award costs.

1.3 Users of cost estimating guidelines The Cost Estimating Guidelines are prepared for use by various parties involved with projects included in BFPP4. These include:

Consultants and City preparing and reviewing the EA

Consultants and City preparing and reviewing the Preliminary Design Reports (PDR)

Detailed Design & Contract Administration Consultants preparing the detailed design and the

Program Management Consultants (PgMC) reviewing the detailed design.

1.4 Cost per benefitting household On August 12, 2011, City Council directed that the prioritization of Basement Flooding Protection Program projects should be consistent with the principle that the greatest number of properties are protected as soon as possible within approved funding envelopes and coordinated with other City capital programs. This essentially means that that BFPP projects, identified through completed Environmental Assessments in the ‘Chronic Basement Flooding Study Areas’, proceed to detailed design and construction only if the cost to benefiting properties, as determined during the preliminary design stage, is less than or equal to $32,000. The application of this principle of ‘cost per benefiting household’ (CBH) to prioritize, select and implement basement flooding improvement projects makes it even more important that cost estimates prepared by EA and PD consultants are consistent and follow some standard guidelines. These cost estimating guidelines are meant to achieve this objective. The formula for the cost per benefiting household, at preliminary design, is as follows:



Cost per Benefitting home = __________Estimated Cost of the Solution *_______ Number of homes where flooding has been mitigated

* Estimated Cost of the project (based on the preferred EA or PD solution) for purposes of CBH calculations includes all costs that are drawn from the program’s capital budget. This includes:

Construction cost for the supply, installation, restoration of proposed infrastructure Easement costs Contingency allowances HST (net of recoveries)

This does not include:

Soft costs – program, planning, detail design, permitting fees, construction management, legal costs, materials testing etc.

Management Reserves Cost of additional work scope identified by other City Departments Escalation.

Total Capital Cost (TPC) of projects includes the Basement Flooding Base Construction Cost (BC), Construction Cost of Additional works (AC), property and easement cost (P), contingencies (C), escalation (E) and the non-reimbursable part of the HST.

1.5 Industry standards for classification of cost estimates The need for consistency in cost estimates led associations of cost estimators to develop guidelines and classification systems for cost estimates. The most commonly used guidelines and classification system was put forth by the International Association for Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97). The AACE was formerly the American Association of Cost Estimators (AACE) founded in 1956. AACE Classification system is shown in Table 1.1. Recently the Canadian Construction Association (CCA) has also published "Guide to Cost Predictability in Construction", which is an analysis of issues affecting the accuracy of construction cost estimates. The types of cost estimates classes defined by the CCA guide are represented in Table 1.2. Both guidelines seek to identify and quantify the reduction of variance in costs estimates as the project details become more defined.



Table 1.1: AACE Classification of cost estimates

(Table 1-1 is reproduced from AACE International Recommended Practice 18R-97)

Table 1.2: CCA Classification system for cost estimates

COST ESTIMATE VARIANCE MATRIX +/- %

Class of Estimate

CE based on Project Complexity

Low High

D Concept sketch design 20 30

C 33% Design Development 15 20

B 66% Design Development 10 15

A 100% Complete Tender Documents 5 10

Unique projects, circumstances or risks Varies Add to Above %

1.6 Cost estimation tool and guidelines for BFPP4 The Cost Estimating Tool and Guidelines for BFPP4 have been developed by adapting the AACE classification system and methodology to meet the specific needs of the City and to be compatible with the project life cycle and stage gates applicable to BFPP4 projects. The CE tool and guidelines consist of:

a) The narrative in this document which describes the background information such as:

industry standards for classification of cost estimates like the AACE and CCA;

types and components of cost (hard and soft costs, allowances, contingencies etc.);

steps in preparing a cost estimate;

BFPP4 cost estimate classes.



b) BFPP4 Cost Estimating tool which consists of:

Forms for documenting the ‘Basis of Design and Cost Estimates’ – Appendix A.

EXCEL spreadsheets for preparing consistent cost estimates across the different project life cycle stages – Appendix B.

A database of unit rates of common BFPP4 construction items prepared from historic data of BFPP1 and 2 contracts – Appendix C.

Process for Analysis of Unit Rates is described in Appendix D.

Section 1 and 2 of this document provides the background information described in (a) above. Section 3 is a description and background information of the database of unit rates attached as Appendix C. This database includes a list of cost items that must be considered in developing the capital cost of infrastructure projects in BFPP4 and the applicable unit costs of these commonly occurring cost items. This database will be periodically updated to reflect changing market conditions using rates from recent BFPP tenders and the City’s PTP tool. Version control will be needed to manage updates to the data base. Section 4 describes the Basis of Design and Cost Estimate that must be completed and submitted with cost estimates. This section also describes the EXCEL tool for preparing the actual cost estimates. The Basis of Design is attached as Appendix A and describes the component of costs and includes recommendations for allowances and contingencies to arrive at the Total Construction cost.


2-1


SECTION 2

Components and Classes of BFPP4 Cost Estimates

2.1 Classes of BFPP4 cost estimates

The BFPP4 projects follow a defined life cycle with distinct Stage Gates. The life cycle can be considered divided into a series of activities (stages) after which a decision or approval is required to proceed to the next stage. The decision point is marked by the Stage Gate.

Cost estimates are generated as the project progresses through its life cycle stages as described below:

Environmental Assessment (EA) stage identifies the preferred solution to alleviate flooding.

Preliminary Design (PD) stage verifies the EA solutions using field and desk data collection, review

of the hydraulic model based on the proposed EA solution. Additional scope not identified during

the EA Study may also be added during the Preliminary Design stage to improve coordination

between all construction activities planned within the neighbourhood.

75% Detailed Design stage follows Preliminary Design. In this stage the design is developed

further and where necessary additional Sub-surface Utility Exploration (SUE), geotechnical and

hydrogeological surveys are conducted to verify the preliminary design.

Pre-tender stage represents 95-100% detailed design when contract drawings and specifications

are available for detailed quantity take off and final cost estimate.

The Stage Gates associated with the above life cycle stages are shown in Figure 2.1 and are described below:

Stage Gate 0 (SG0) is the completion and approval of Conceptual Design developed as part of the EA studies.

Stage Gate 1 (SG1) occurs on completion of 30% design; it marks the end of the Preliminary Design phase and aaproval to proceed to detailed design.

Stage Gate 2 (SG2) is the completion of Detailed Design and marks the approval to proceed to tender. Detailed Design is split over two classes of cost estimates (explained later). Class 2 cost estimates are developed up to 75% detailed design and Class 1 estimates apply from 95% to 100% design.

Stage Gates 3 (SG3) is the start of construction and Stage Gates 4, 5 are other construction Stage Gates.

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4 COST ESTIMATING TOOL AND GUIDELINES


Figure 2.1: Project Life Cycle and Stage Gates for BFPP4 Design-Bid-Build Projects/Assignments The design life cycle stages of BFPP4 projects have been matched to the corresponding AACE Classes of Cost Estimates based on the level of design specified by the City at each phase of the project (Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1).

Class 4 SG0 Class 3 SG1 Class 2 Class 1 SG2

Classes of Cost Estimates

Figure 2.2: Mapping AACE Cost Estimate Classes to the Life Cycle of BFPP4 Projects

Conceptual Design/EA (15-20%)

Preliminary Design (30%)

Detailed Design (75%)

Detailed Design/ Pre-tender

(95%-100%)



Table 2.1 - BFPP4 Classes of Cost Estimates

Estimate Class & BFPP4 Project Phase

Design % Cost Estimation Methodolgy

Range of Accuracy

Allowances and

Contingency Low High

Class 4 (EA Estimate)

15-20% Parametric Method; Equipment Factored in where applicable

-20% 40% Allowances are typically not applied. Range of accuracy can be used to provide the range of the cost or contingency that may be used to capture the range.

Class 3 (Preliminary Design)

30% Semi Detailed Unit Cost with Assembly Level Line Items

-15% 30% Allowances will be made for known costs for easements, surveys for trees, SUE, geotechnical etc. and items such as yard piping, electrical, and instrumentation and control, which may not have been identified /quantified because of lack of design detail or time. As design is refined detailed quantity take-offs are done and contingencies are reduced.

Class 2 (75% Detailed

Design)

75% Detailed Unit Costs with Forced Detailed Quantity Take-off

-10% 20%

Class 1 (95-100% Final

Design)

95-100% Detailed Unit Costs with Detailed Quantity Take-off

-5% 10%

While the CCA and AACE accuracy ranges may vary somewhat for the different classes, for the purpose of BFPP4 the target accuracy has been identified in Table 2.1 above. Table 2.2 presents a comparison between the proposed design development and range of accuracy of estimates for BFPP4 with AACE and CCA classification systems.

Table 2.2 – Comparison of Proposed BFPP4 Classification with AACE and CCA Classification of Cost Estimates

AACE Classes of Cost Estimates

Class 4 3 2 1

Stage of Design 1 to 15% 10 to 40% 30 to 70% 100%

Accuracy Range -30 to +50% -20 to +30% -15 to +20% -10 to +15%

CCA Classes of Cost Estimates

Class D C B A

Stage of Design Concept 33% 66% 100%

Accuracy Range -20 to +30% -15 to+20% -10 to +15% -5 to +10%

Proposed Classes of Cost Estimates for BFPP4

Class 4 3 2 1

Stage of Design EA PD Design Pre Tender

15 to 20% 30% 75% 95-100%

Accuracy Range -20 to +40% -15 to +30% -10 to +20% -5 to +10%



2.2 Components of capital cost 2.2.1 Total capital costs of BFPP4 Projects

The components that make up the total capital cost of BFPP4 projects are as follows:

Hard Costs or Construction Costs (associated with conduits, pipes, structures, etc.) o BFPP4 Base Construction Cost (BC) o Additional Scope Base Construction Cost (AC) o Both BC and AC include allowances for items described in Section 2.2.3 such as

mobilization, bonds, Insurance, field offices, traffic control, temporary clearing works etc.

Cost of property acquired for temporary/permanent easements (P)

Total Base Construction Cost (TCC) is the sum of BC, AC and P.

Contingencies (C)

Cost Escalation (E)

Taxes at 1.0176 times the total capital cost (TPC) which is the sum of the Base (construction plus property acquisition cost).

Management Reserves (MR). Soft costs associated with engineering design and surveys,legal costs of land acquisition, permitting fees and material testing by the City are tracked under “Engineering Costs” by Toronto Water (TW) and not considered part of the capital cost of the project. The standard cost estimation tool for BFPP4 is designed to capture the components of the project capital cost in a consistent manner.

2.2.2 Hard Construction Costs

Hard construction costs are expenditures made to construct, manufacture and/or install tangible, depreciable facilities contained in a capital project or a specific BFPP4 assignment. Some of these costs include:

Construction contractor payments

Cost of any construction materials directly purchased by the City

Owner or contractors provided equipment installed on a project

Acquisition and installation of flow monitoring equipment

SCADA and computers required as part of the equipment installed on a project

Depreciable portion of utility equipment directly associated with the construction of a project

Utility work force used as direct labor for construction of a project

Environmental mitigation and restoration costs

Operating expenses directly associated with ‘work arounds’ to facilitate project construction

Construction notification and public information.

Allowances mentioned in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 are included in the hard constructions costs.



Sometimes the purchase price of property or payment for ROW easement for a project is considered part of the hard construction cost. In this document it is included in the Base Construction Cost but is treated as a separate item.

2.2.3 Allowances for Indeterminate (AFI) costs

Within each cost estimate are known scope activities that cannot be quantified or are too small to warrant spending the time to quantify during early phases of design development. These costs are usually covered by including an allowance. These allowances reflect project costs that can reasonably be foreseen and are known to occur based on previous experience, but cannot be quantified because of the lack of design detail or time. As the engineering design progresses and the level of detail increases, the percentage of cost attributed to allowances within the cost estimate will decrease and will be replaced by costs generated from detailed quantity take-offs.

In the specific context of BFPP4 these foreseeable but as yet not fully defined costs are referred to as ‘Allowances’. Some of the Allowances are:

Bonds

Insurance

Mobilization

Field Office

Traffic Control

Project Sign

Condition Surveys

Sediment Control

Clearing

Tree protection

Special Features

Additional Cost for Winter Work

Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils

Provisional Sum for Snow Removal & Disposal

Contingencies and Management Reserves are part of any cost estimate and are included to account for known and unknown uncertainties. These are discussed separately.

2.3 Contingency and Management Reserves 2.3.1 Contingency

Contingencies (C) are intended to provide a buffer against the occurrence of foreseeable costs beyond the defined project scope. Contingency Reserve or ‘known unknowns’ is an amount added to the Base Cost to cover identified risks that occur on a given project such as:

Planning and estimating errors and omissions

Design changes within scope or incomplete scope definition



Unforeseen variations in market and environmental conditions

Reserves to cover risks identified in the Risk Register and Risk Management Plan.

The percentage of contingency applied to the project cost will depend on the degree of risk the Project Manager is willing to assume for potential project cost overruns. This decision is based on the City’s policies and management decision to avoid project cost overruns or the need to re-appropriate additional funds. A risk averse view to contingency means the inclination to apply relatively high contingency to cost estimates. Consistently applying a high contingency will result in inflated capital costs which will in turn reduce effective allocation of available financial and physical resources within the organization. Staff planning, Capital funding, borrowing, debt management and priority setting to achieve desired service levels will be affected.

2.3.2 Management Reserves

Management Reserve (MR) is an amount added to the Base Cost to cover unidentified risk events or ‘unknown unknowns’. Management Reserve covers:

Minor scope changes

Cost risks that are not explicitly identifiable Management Reserves do not include major scope changes which must go through the Change Management process and funding change approvals. MR amounts are placed in a reserve fund which is not considered a part of the Total Project Budget. The purpose of the Management Reserve, approval for its use, management and tracking should be clearly identified. Typically this amount cannot be used by the Project Manager without management approval. Table 2.3 shows various scenarios in which Contingency and Management Reserve funds may be utilized. Table 2.3 - Contingency and Risk Management Reserves

Example I tems

Cost Risks Base

Cost Contingency Management

Reserve

Change

Management

Working Downtown (identified,

known outcome)

• Less working space

• Restricted construction times

• Expensive traffic

management

x

Utility Conflicts

(identified, known outcome) • Relocate other utilities

• Complex design x

Community Relations

(identified, known

outcome)

• Controversial project

• Requires community participation

x

(identified, unknown

outcome)

x

Property acquisition

(not identified,

unknown

outcome)

• Re-design

• Requires minor scope change

x



fails (not identified,

unknown

outcome)

• Re-design

• Requires major scope change (i.e. new project location)

x

Archaeological Artifacts on site

(identified, unknown outcome)

• Project is delayed.

• No scope change .

x

(not identified,

unknown outcome)


• Requires minor scope change

x

(not identified, unknown outcome)


• Requires major scope change (i.e. new project location)

x

Concrete availability low

(not identified, unknown

outcome)

• Project is delayed

• No scope change .

x

Poor condition of assets

(not identified, unknown

outcome)

• Need to replace asset (e.g. Valves)

• Minor scope change

x

2.4 Property acquisition and easement costs Property and easement acquisition costs (P) are part of the project capital cost. The City would like to follow the following approach to estimating the cost of property and easements:

At the EA phase a range of cost estimates will be developed with the help of the City’s Real Property Office. The high end of the estimate will be the cost of acquiring property. The lower end of the estimate will be the cost of an easement. A value between these the upper and lower limits may be adopted but a justification for the choice will be provided.

As the design development advances and the need for the easement becomes better defined the easement costs will become more refined EA to PD and DD phases.

Table 2.4 – Range of Easement Costs

Range of Easement Costs Comments

Temporary Easement (P1) Permanent Easement (P2)

Upper Limit of Cost Actual cost Actual cost Based on property acquisition

and market price of land

Lower limit of Cost 2% of the Base Cost 2% of the Base Cost Based on simple easement

2.5 Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) The City of Toronto pays harmonized sales tax (HST) on all services and construction contracts. The cost estimate shall include the harmonized sales tax. Total capital cost is 1.0176 times the Basement Flooding base construction cost+ construction cost of additional works, property/ easement costs, contingencies and escalation where 1.76 represents the portion of HST that is not reimbursed.



2.6 Cost escalation Escalation (E) is the provision in a cost estimate for increases in the cost of equipment, material, labor, and other components due to continuing price changes over time. Escalation includes both the application of historic indices to bring costs to the current year, and the use of escalation factors to extend costs to a future year. For multi-year projects the escalation is typically done to the mid-point of construction. Using the project midpoint (rather than construction start or finish) as the cost basis ensures that the estimate will approximate an average of costs throughout the construction schedule. Cost index escalation factors are indices from published journals (ENR) or may be provided by the City of Toronto.

EA and Preliminary Design cost estimates often rely on known costs associated with similar reference projects. The historic indices must be applied to these historical reference costs to bring the cost estimate to “current” cost dollars. The appropriate indices determine how historical prices have changed over time and geographic location. The escalation factor is also used to extend the current dollar costs of both the reference projects and the intended project to the mid-point of construction of the intended project for the 75% and 95%-100% design estimates.

Particular attention should be paid to items such as concrete, steel, when comparing them to reference projects; otherwise, they may skew the escalation. Where a project will require considerable amounts of steel, concrete, asphalt etc., separate escalation indices should be used for each: escalation over time and escalation in size.

2.7 Base Construction Costs (BC) and Additional Construction Costs (AC) The Basement Flooding scope ‘Base Construction Cost’ (BC) is defined as the sum of all the hard construction costs. The construction cost of all additional work is defined as Additional Scope Construction Cost (AC). The property/ easement acquisition for the basement flooding scope of work (P) consists of temporary and permanent easements. The Total Base Construction Cost TCC is the sum of BC, AC and P. These costs are developed from the level of available design details during the different project life cycle stages. See Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 - Base Construction Cost at different Project Life Cycle Stages

Project life cycle stage and Estimate Class

Method for Estimating Base Construction Cost

Environmental Assessment Phase (Class 4)

Parametric Analysis using preliminary estimate of quantities and unit rates from database (Appendix C) where applicable.

30 % Preliminary Design (Class 3) Quantity Take-off; Equipment Factored in; unit rates from database (Appendix C)

75 % Detailed Design (Class 2) More Detailed Quantity Take-off and unit rates from database

95 % - 100% Design (Class 1) Further Detailed Quantity Take-off.

2.8 Cost of additional scope added by other City departments During the preparation of the Preliminary Design the City may add scope to the BFPP4 contract scope. This scope includes work such as State of Good Repair (SOGR) added by Toronto Water, Transportation/Roads, etc., so that any other infrastructure planned within the neighbourhood where the BFPP4 project is to be constructed is packaged under a single contract. This is done to



minimize the inconvenience/disturbance to the neighbourhood by ensuring that all the planned work is coordinated and constructed at the same time.

The Additional Construction Cost (AC) is developed similar to the above but includes only the additional scope by other City departments. The sum of BC, AC and P constitutes the Total Base Construction (TCC). AC is not included in the Cost per benefiting household (CBH) calculations.

Unit costs for items in AC are the same as those in BC and have been included in the data base presented in Section 3. However, due to the cost per benefitting hosehold calculation (Section 1.4) being used to determine the priority of assignments, the cost estimates must be prepared so that BFPP costs are kept separate from this additional scope. The contract unit price form of tenders tenders also need to be prepared so that the costs can be identified to the different cost accounts managed by different City Departments. This requirement from different departments added a level of complexity to the way cost estimates are prepared and documented.

2.9 Market conditions Local market conditions and resource limitations may drive up the costs for materials and labor beyond the values obtained from the published indices. The change in cost is usually unanticipated and very specific to a local area. The escalation factors used for the cost estimate must accurately reflect local market conditions and adjust cost according to local market conditions.

2.10 Role of PTP in Cost Estimation The City uses PTP (Portal Tracking Portal) tool to enter all items of work identified in the unit price form of tenders of construction contracts. This tool permits the City to capture historical data in a data base which can then be used to produce estimates for futue work. However over time many non-standard items have been introduced and presently the City is updating the standard items list for use on future contracts. The new standard items list breaks down the work into similar components for excavation, disposal, supply and install new conduit, backfill, compaction, restoration etc. regardless of the type of work. The BFPP work is primarily sewers and watermains with some accommodation work. To avoid additional effort for City staff to administer the contracts, or for the Contractor to price/measure the work for payments, standard PTP items are proposed for BFPP (to the extent possible) and these are included in Appendix C. The selection of items is based on those most commonly used in BFPP Phase 1 to 3 contracts.

2.11 Cost Estimate Templates for Project Phases The City unit price forms of tender are broken down into street by street components. The components are then divided into Parts that identify the “Total Construction Cost”; these are shown in Table 2.6 which summarizes all the hard construction costs, property/ easement costs, Allowances for Indeterminate Costs (AFI) for, both, Base scope of Basement Flooding (BC) as well as Additonal Scope (AC) for watermains, road, State of Good Repair etc in the vicinity of the Basement Flooding and consequently added to the overall Assignment. Contingencies, Management Reserves, Escalation and HST are other components of the cost included in Table 2.6. Allowances for



indeterminate costs (explained earlier) become determinate as the works evolve during the different phases of design and project life cycle. Table 2.6 not only summarizes all the element of the Total Construction Cost but also presents the summary of these cost components for each phase of the project from EA (SG0) to PD (SG1), 75% DD, 95%DD (SG2) and IFT pricing. The detailed cost estimate of each phase is developed using Table 2.7. The results of Table 2.7 feed the information on Table 2.6.

2.11.1 Environmental Assessment (Class 4 Estimate)

During the EA stage alternatives solutions are investigated and cost estimates are prepared for each alternative including the preferred alternative which is adopted as the EA recommended solution. Table 2.7 is to be used to develop the EA, PD, DD and IFT cost estimates. At the EA phase it will not be possible to define all the items so most of the items will be defined as percentages of defined items (typically Parts 1 and 2 of Table 2.7).

2.11.2 Preliminary Design (Class 3 Estimate)

During the PD the preferred alternative solution identified in the EA is field verified, a desk top study is done of utilities and geotechnical information, and the preferred solution is adjusted accordingly. Solutions are packaged into bundles for a single contract, permitting, staging needs are identified.

Table 2.7 identifies a breakdown of the allowances based on historical data. Some of these allowances are replaced with actual estimates during PD as these items become more defined during this phase of the design.

2.11.3 75 % Detailed Design (Class 2 Estimate)

At the 75% detailed design submission the DDCA consultant has verified locations with SUE investigations, reviewed and verified working easements and PDR cost estimate rates. At this stage the estimate should be developed from more detailed information on design and sequencing of the work. The DDCA consultant can verify the unit rates being used with current market conditions and tenders.

2.11.4 95% Detailed Design and Issue for Tender (Class 1 Estimate)

SG2 is at 95% completion of detailed design. Approval of SG2 means proceedingto finalizing design and drawings to 100% and finalizing the Issue for Tender (IFT) documents and Tender Pricing Forms. The 95% and IFT cost estimate are similar and based on final take-offs. At this stage actual quantities/items are known and the schedule/sequence of work is specified. A contingency allowance and Management Reserve are carried for unknowns that may result during construction such as change in site conditions but this % has progressively reduced to about at IFT 10% to 15% from an initial 35%-25% at the EA phase.



Table 2.6 – Assignment # X

ESTIMATED ACTUALS

Ite

m D

escr

ipti

on

Ite

m N

ame

EA (

Cla

ss 4

Co

st E

stim

ate)

PD

(C

lass

3 C

ost

Est

imat

e)

75

% D

D (

Cla

ss 2

Co

st

Esti

mat

e)

95

% D

D (

Cla

ss 1

Co

st

Esti

mat

e)

IFT

Pri

cin

g (

Cla

ss 1

CE

)

Low

est

Bid

Ch

ange

Ord

ers

Fin

al C

on

trac

t P

rice

Co

mm

ents

1. BFPP - Base Construction Cost (BC) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 1 - Sanitary Sewers C1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingencies - not included in each item but under, 'Item 4-Contingencies'

Part 2 - Storm Sewers C2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Note that qty-take-off may not be possible for EA Ph. If so use parametrical analysis for C1-C11 and A1 to A11.

Part 3 - Laterals C3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer C4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 5 - Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer C5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 6 - Storage C6

6.1 - Subsurface Conduit C6.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6.2 - Subsurface Tank C6.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6.3 - Open Pond C6.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 7 - Watermain Replacement C7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections C8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 9 - Permanent Restoration C9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 10 - Miscellaneous C10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Not to be used as a contingency but specified for special items specific to a project.

Part 11 - Allowances C11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.1 - Bonds C11.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.2 - Insurance C11.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.3 - Mobilization C11.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.4 - Field Office C11.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.5 - Traffic Control C11.5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.6 - Project Sign C11.6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.7 - Condition Surveys C11.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.8 - Sediment Control C11.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.9 - Clearing C11.9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.10 - Tree protection C11.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.11 - Special Features C11.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.12 - Additional Cost for Winter Work C11.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.13 - Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils C11.13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.14 - Prov. Sum for Snow Rem/Disposal C11.14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost (P)

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Temporary Easement P1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Estimate Upper and Lower limits of cost with input from Real Property office

Permanent Easement P2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Estimate Upper and Lower limits of cost with input from Real Property office

3. Additional Scope - Construction Cost (AC)

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0



Part 1 - Sanitary Sewers A1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingencies - not included in each item but under, 'Item 4-Contingencies'

Part 2 - Storm Sewers A2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Part 3 - Laterals A3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer A4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Part 5 - Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer A5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Part 6 - Storage A6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Part 7 - Watermain Replacement A7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections A8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Part 9 - Permanent Restoration A9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 10 - Miscellaneous A10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Not to be used as a contingency but specified for special items specific to a project.

Part 11 - Allowances A11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.1 - Bonds A11.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.2 - Insurance A11.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.3 - Mobilization A11.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.4 - Field Office A11.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.5 - Traffic Control A11.5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.6 - Project Sign A11.6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.7 - Condition Surveys A11.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.8 - Sediment Control A11.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.9 - Clearing A11.9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.10 - Tree protection A11.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.11 - Special Features A11.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.12 - Additional Cost for Winter Work A11.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.13 - Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils A11.13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.14 - Prov. Sum for Snow Rem. & Disposal A11.14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL BASE CONSTRUCTION COST (TCC) (1+2+3) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4. Contingency (C= x% of (1+2+3)) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Buffer for occurrence of foreseeable costs or 'known unknowns' that are not yet fully estimated.

5. HST 13% of (1+2+3+4) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 HST is calculated but not included in Capital Cost.

6. Management Reserve - 5%-10% of (1+2+3) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost & scope changes that cannot be foreseen or identified. MR is not part of the TPC.

7. Escalation (E) - Enter date of Estimate

(1) Enter date Estimate was prepared. (2) Escalation is assumed to mid-point of construction

Construction midpoint assumed in escalation

TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (TPC =1.0176 times (1+2+3+4+7)

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 The factor 1.76 represents the component of HST not reimbursed to the City.

Accepted Range of Accuracy of Estimate

-20% to

+40%

-15% to

+30%

-10% to

+20%

-5% to

+10%

-5% to

+10%

RANGE OF ACCURACY OF COST ESTIMATE - - - - -

to to to to to - - - - -



Table 2.7 - BFPP4 EA / PD / DD / IFT Cost Estimate

Locked Input

Item

#

Item

s

incl

ud

ed

in

the

Ass

ign

me

nt

Loca

tio

n/

Stre

et

Size

/

Nu

mb

er

Dep

th

Qu

anti

ty

Dat

abas

e

Rat

e

Am

ou

nt

Am

ou

nt

to

Sum

mar

y

Tab

le

Ap

pen

dix

B

1. BFPP - Base Construction Cost (BC) $ -

Part 1 - Santitary Sewers

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 2 - Storm Sewers

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 3 - Laterals (Default = 5% of the Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

5% TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer (Default =30% of Part 1)

30%

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 5 - Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer (Default =30% of Part 2)

30%

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 6 - Storage

Subsurface Conduit (Box culverts or large dia. pipes Included in Part 1 & 2)

TOTAL = $0 Subsurface Tank TOTAL = $0

Open Pond TOTAL = $0 Part 7 - Watermain Replacement (Default = 10% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

10%

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections (Default =5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

5% TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 9 - Permanent Restoration (Default =40% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

40% TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 10 - Miscellaneous (Default =30% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

30% TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 11 - Allowances (Default =20% of Sum of Parts 1 to 10)

20% Bonds $0

Insurance $0 Mobilization $0

Field Office $0 Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0 Condition Surveys $0 Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0 Tree protection $0

Special Features $0 Additional Cost for Winter Work $0

Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils $0 Provisional Sum for Snow Removal & Disposal $0

TOTAL = $0 $0

2. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost (P) (Default =2% of Sum of Parts 1 to 10)

2% $ -



Temporary Easements TOTAL = $0 $0 Permanent Easement TOTAL = $0 $0

3. Additional Scope - Construction Cost (AC) $ -

Part 1 - Santitary Sewers

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 2 - Storm Sewers

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 3 - Laterals (Default = 5% of the Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

5% TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer (Default =30% of Part 1)

30%

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 5 - Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer (Default =30% of Part 2)

30%

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 6 - Storage

Subsurface Conduit (Box culverts or large dia. pipes Included in Part 1 & 2)

TOTAL = $0 Subsurface Tank TOTAL = $0

Open Pond TOTAL = $0 Part 7 - Watermain Replacement (Default = 10% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

10%

TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections (Default =5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

5% TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 9 - Permanent Restoration (Default =40% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

40% TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 10 - Miscellaneous (Default =30% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

30% TOTAL = $0 $0 Part 11 - Allowances (Default =20% of Sum of Parts 1 to 10)

20% Bonds $0

Insurance $0 Mobilization $0

Field Office $0 Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0 Condition Surveys $0 Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0 Tree protection $0

Special Features $0 Additional Cost for Winter Work $0

Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils $0 Provisional Sum for Snow Removal & Disposal $0

TOTAL = $0 $0

4. Contingency EA: 25%, PD: 15%, DD75: 10%, DD95: 5%, IFT: 5%

TOTAL = $0 $0

2.12 Risk costs and risk management Risk is defined as the combination of the probability of an event occurring and its consequence, or impact. In the context of cost estimating probability refers to the likelihood of a specific cost being



incurred or the likelihood that the cost is much higher than originally assumed. The impact refers to the influence this uncertainty has on the cumulative cost of the project. For the purpose of cost estimating, risk management is about:

Identifying costs that are most uncertain.

Estimating the likelihood and consequence associated with those inputs.

Deciding how to reduce or mitigate the risks that have the most effect on the cost estimate.

Both the likelihood and impact of the cost input must be considered when assessing risk associated cost. A cost input may have a high likelihood of occurring, but its cost impact may be low. Therefore, there is little risk associated with that cost input.

2.12.1 Risk assessment methods

There are two methods of assessing risk for the purpose of cost estimating:

Qualitative assessment using the Risk Management Framework.

Quantitative assessment using Monte Carlo simulation.

Qualitative assessment is most appropriate in early stages of the project up through preliminary design. Quantitative assessment should be performed for more complex projects at 75% or higher level of detailed design.

2.12.2 Qualitative risk assessment

The BFPP4 Risk Management Plan provides a common language and methodology for assessing risk qualitatively across the BFPP4 Program. The Program Risk Register identifies different categories of risk from technical, financial, legal, regulatory, political, health and safety risks.

In qualitative risk assessment, project team members engage in a brainstorming session to identify key risks that may be present for the project at hand. Risks should generally be similar throughout the BFPP4 program, thus a set of common BFPP4 risks should be identified and used as a starting point for all analyses. In order to ensure a focused, cost-effective risk assessment, the initial risks identified should be refined and screened so that only those risks that truly have the potential to result in a major or extreme risk impact are assessed.

Once risks are identified, the project team assigs the likelihood of occurrence and refers to the BFPP4 Risk Management Plan to assign the impact should that risk occur. To document the results of the risk assessment, each assessed risk should be accompanied by a short description of the risk and the rationale for the risk signature assigned to that risk.

RISK SIGNATURE LEVEL DETERMINANT

Impact

Likelihood Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme

Almost certain M M H C C

Likely M M H C C

Possible L M M H H

Unlikely L L M H H

Rare L L M M M

L Low

M Medium

H High

C Critical

Figure 2.3: Risk Assessment Matrix



2.12.3 Quantitative risk assessment

Quantitative assessment of costs or schedule is conducted using Monte Carlo simulation. The process steps are similar to qualitative risk assessment, including:

Identifying risk, with the aim of identifying the key aspects of the cost estimate, and classifying a list of the events that might impact the success of the project;

Assessing risk, by estimating the uncertainty associated with cost elements, the likelihood that things may go wrong and the associated potential cost or schedule impacts and using tornado diagrams to identifying the main factors driving risk;

Monitoring and reviewing risks as the project moves into greater design development.

Cost elements that are relatively certain and those with significant uncertainty are assessed. In general, any cost or schedule element with a medium to critical risk should be assessed in the second step. No further characterization is needed for low risk elements. In the second step, medium to critical risks are assessed quantitatively by estimating probabilities of occurrence and cost impacts.

A similar process should be considered for any “unknowns” identified that are not part of the cost estimate, and the contingency adjusted accordingly. Note that these risks should not have a probability of occurrence greater than 50%. If it does, that risk should generally not be defined as “unknown”, and it should instead be identified as part of the direct cost estimate, since it is a cost that is expected to occur.

When assigning probabilities, the selection of candidate probability distributions should be based on consideration of the underlying physical processes or mechanisms thought to drive the observed variability. However, in construction risk assessment projects, uncertainties are typically not the result of underlying physical processes or mechanisms. In such cases, there are a few types of distributions that are used frequently because their parameters fit the underlying nature of most risks, and they are relatively easy to elicit from subject matter experts. Common distributions used in construction cost and schedule risk assessment, and the parameters required, include:

Triangle (lowest, most likely, and highest impact)

Trigen (low percentile and impact, high percentile and impact, most likely impact)

PERT (lowest, most likely, and highest impact)

Uniform (lowest and highest impact). Probabilities and impacts should be assessed by subject matter experts. The overall assessment of risk should be reviewed by senior members of the management team.

2.12.4 Monte Carlo simulation

After all likelihoods and impacts are defined, Monte Carlo simulation should be used to characterize the risk associated with the construction cost and/or schedule estimate. In Monte Carlo simulation, a random sample is selected from each probability distribution, and the cost or schedule estimate is calculated. This result is saved, and the process is repeated for many (up to 10,000) iterations. The result is a probability distribution around cost or schedule. There are two key results of the simulation:



Risk profile, which is a cumulative distribution function around cost or schedule;

Tornado diagram, which identifies which risks have the greatest effect on the overall cost or schedule impacts.

The risk profile shows a cumulative distribution function for cost or schedule, which can be interpreted as the likelihood of cost or schedule being at or below a particular probability percentile (for example, 50th percentile or 70th percentile).

The tornado diagram is typically expressed as a regression coefficient that shows the sensitivity of cost or schedule to changes in individual uncertainties holding all other uncertainties constant. It highlights risks where mitigation strategies may be most valuable or where it may be worth obtaining additional information to more fully understand the extent of that particular risk.

2.12.5 Other issues relevant to quantitative risk assessment

Contingency: When conducting a quantitative risk assessment, consideration should be given to the appropriate level of contingency. Many of the unknowns will be explicitly estimated as risks. Thus, the contingency should be lowered so as to not double count the effect of those unknowns in the estimate. The exact amount of contingency to include in the base construction cost estimate should be determined with the assistance of a professional cost estimator.

Correlation: A key aspect of ensuring the appropriateness of the Monte Carlo simulation is to ensure the correct representation of independence and dependency between variables. This is important because the assumption that all variables are independent naturally results in a narrower probability distribution compared to one where there are dependencies. Therefore, not providing allowance for correlation between cost items may result in underestimating cost or schedule risk.

Costs of project elements are often correlated. Correlation occurs if the costs of two (or more) elements are expected to move together. That is, costs of two elements will be above or below their average together. Correlation occurs mainly for two reasons: because a common "cost driver" influences the cost elements, or one cost element may depend on the other. Correlation is defined between pairs of cost elements, although an individual cost element may be correlated with many others. Correlation is defined from -1.0 to +1.0. On this scale, a perfect positive correlation of +1.0

Schedule Duration (Months)

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

ba

bilit

y

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

20 22 24 26

Schedule Duration (Months)

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

ba

bilit

y

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

20 22 24 26

Figure 2.4 - Quantitative Risk Assessment Matrix



represents two project elements that are always expected to occur in lock step, reflecting an accounting formula. Therefore, coefficients can be positive (0 to 1), where the related cost elements increase or decrease in the same direction; or negative (0 to -1), where one cost estimate increases while the other decreases. The closer you are to -1 to 1, the stronger the relationship.

Unfortunately, there is very little empirical data on correlated cost variables. Therefore, unless there is sufficient reason to justify otherwise, cost elements should be assumed to be independent (correlation of 0) or fully dependent (correlation of 1 or -1).

2.12.6 Application of the risk management techniques

Application of this risk management methodology is recommended for all cost estimates in all stages. The level of application will be based upon the size of the project and also influenced by the complexity. These guidelines suggest a qualitative uncertainty and impact assessment during the EA and PD Stages and a quantitative assessment during Detailed Design. The choice of assessment method will depend on the level of engineering detail available for estimating.

2.13 Summary of steps in preparing BFPP4 cost estimates The purpose of these guidelines is to assist in developing an approach, tools and instructions for consistent estimation of Base Construction Cost, Additional Construction Cost, Allowances, Contingencies and Management Reserves at each stage in the project life cycle and for all projects in the BFPP4 Program. The components and cost estimation templates have been provided in the Tables 2.6 to 2.9 of this section. Actual calculation can be done using the EXCEL template attached as Appendix B. Prior to starting a cost estimate the Basis of Design and Cost Estimate attached as Appendix A must be completed. Determine the actual construction costs using either the estimated quantities and unit rates in Appendix C.

Allowance for Indeterminate Factors: Allowances for indeterminate amounts are captured within the high range of accuracy of the estimate for Class 4 Estimates. For Class 3, and 1 allowances are appropriately captured under Provisional Allowances, contingencies and Management Reserves. Before completing the cost estimate or submitting it a quality review is necessary. All revisions should be documented.



SECTION 3

Cost Estimating Database for BFPP4

3.1 Developing a database of unit rates of BFPP4 construction items This Cost Estimating Guideline includes a database of recommended unit rates of typical construction cost items relevant to the basement flooding protection scope. This database was developed through a comparison of rates of similar BFPP1 and 2 contracts. The lowest three bids for various BFPP1 and 2 contracts were analyzed to identify the typical construction items and their unit prices. The database also includes common items that form part of the typical additional scope often added to basement flooding projects by other City Departments. The contracts were brought to current values using escalation rates where necessary.

A total of 42 contracts were analyzed from contracts awarded in BFPP Phases 1 and 2 between 2009 and 2015. Table 3.1 summarizes the year the tender was awarded and the tender value of each of the contracts considered for the development the database.

Table 3.1 – BFPP Phase 1 and 2 Summary of Contracts

Phase Contract Number Assignment Tender Award Year

Tender Award Value

1 12FS-22WP Area 12-01 2012 $ 19,295,183.92

1 12FS-23WP Area 14-1 A/B 2012 $ 12,452,600.00

1 12FS-15WP Area 14-2 2012 $ 1,833,845.60

1 09FS-71WP - GSC1 - TOC8 Area 14-4A 2010 $ 3,458,396.25

1 12FS-25WP Area 14-04B/06B 2012 $ 1,039,507.34

1 09FS-71WP - GSC1 - TOC2 Area 14-6A 2009 $ 1,749,882.20

1 10FS-73WP - GSC2 - TOC2 Area 28-2 A Stm 2010 $ 2,624,264.70

1 09FS-71WP - GSC1 - TOC5 Area 28-3 A 2010 $ 8,992,519.20

1 10FS-76WP Area 28-3 B 2010 $ 21,707,505.80

1 12FS-26WP Area 28-4 2012 $ 8,068,830.54

1 09FS-71WP - GSC1 - TOC4 Area 28-6/28-09 2009 $ 4,354,272.33

1 09FS-71WP - GSC1 - TOC1 Area 28-7 A/28-11 2009 $ 2,683,312.54

1 13FS-36WP Area 28-7 B 2014 $ 1,097,803.75

1 09FS-71WP - GSC1 - TOC3 Area 28-10 2010 $ 1,344,632.87

1 09FS-71WP - GSC1 - TOC6 Area 29-2 A 2010 $ 5,169,471.05

1 09FS-71WP - GSC1 - TOC7 Area 29-9 2010 $ 3,768,470.25

1 11FS-36WP Area 29-29 2011 $ 1,099,868.55

1 10FS-73WP - GSC2 - TOC1 Area 30-1 2010 $ 845,712.84

1 12FS-14WP Area 30-4 A 2012 $ 16,669,203.34

1 14FS-13WS Area 30-04WM 2014 $ 1,501,468.29

2 13FS-32WP 03-02 2013 $ 6,743,118.61

2 14FS-06WP 16-06/07 2014 $ 7,977,437.27

2 14FS-01WP 16-04/08/09 2014 $ 4,584,325.02



2 14FS-02WP 16-13/23/31/26/40/41 2014 $ 5,184,753.01

2 14FS-14WP 11-01/02/03 2014 $ 8,461,859.80

2 14FS-09WP 3-01B 2014 $ 8,249,894.28

2 14FS-25WP 16-33/16-44 2014 $ 4,684,161.54

2 14FS-23WP 10-02/10-03 2014 $ 3,671,675.10

2 14FS-16WP 14-08 2014 $ 2,885,513.76

2 14FS-30WP 16-01 2015 $ 1,827,789.69

2 15ECS-LU-04FP 16-23/26/27/28/29/30/32/37/38 2015 $ 18,946,710.00

2 15ECS-LU-06FP 14-07/03 2015 $ 26,978,750.00

2 15ECS-LU-07FP 31-12/18 29-20 2015 $ 2,442,527.77

2 15ECS-LU-02FP 32-03 2015 $ 3,389,696.21

2 10FS-73WP - GSC2 - TOC3 28-12/13/14 2010 $ 4,118,052.55

2 10FS-73WP - GSC2 - TOC4 31-15 2010 $ 2,127,413.49

2 10FS-73WP - GSC2 - TOC5 31-03 2010 $ 346,956.62

2 10FS-73WP - GSC2 - TOC6 31-01/05/06/07/08 2010 $ 3,725,908.58

2 10FS-73WP - GSC2 - TOC7 31-19/21/23 2010 $ 2,254,337.43

2 13FS-20WP 03-01A 2013 $ 5,590,643.00

2 13FS-24WP 31-09/11 2013 $ 2,537,842.14

2 13FS-35WP 07-01/02 2013 $ 7,621,334.72

Table 3.2 is a list of contracts awarded in BFPP Phase 1 that were omitted from the database analysis as they were lump sum contracts not unit based contracts.

Table 3.2 – Summary of BFPP1 Lump Sum Contracts

Phase Contract Number Assignment Tender Award Year Tender Value Rationale

1 10FS-84WP Area 28-2 B 2010 $ 2,268,927.00 Lump Sum



1 10FS-70WP Area 30-09 A/B 2010 $ 2,500,690.00 Lump Sum

1 12FS-12WP Area 29-02AR 2012 $ 2,026,044.01 Roadway & Restoration Work (No Linear Infrastructure)

1 13FS-09WP Area 03-04 2013 $ 8,737,160.00 Lump Sum

For each of the contracts listed in Table 3.1, the tender/bid analysis was used to determine the three lowest bids for each contract. For all linear infrastructure (storm sewer, sanitary sewer, manholes, etc.) the depth of the constructed infrastructure was added to the pricing form description and was obtained from the ‘Issued for Tender’ drawings. Each contract was then broken down into the following sub-categories:

Sanitary Sewers

Sanitary Structures (MH)

Storm Sewers

Storm Structures (MH)



Water main Replacement

Water main Service Connections

Laterals

Restoration Works

Miscellaneous Items

Allowances

The sub-categorized data from each contract was then transferred into a database where items are sorted and organized in a manner in which a representative unit rate can be established based on the data available. An example of a sample item from the database has been provided in Appendix A.

The analysis identifies the unit price used for each typical item. The unit prices/rates were then analyzed to determine if they were reasonable based on a review of various construction indices. This was considered necessary because contractor's bid rates can be subject to the contractor’s biases, contractor’s bidding strategy, construction sequencing and vary amongst individual contracts.

As mentioned in Section 2.9, the City's Project Tracking Portal (PTP) is being updated to 400 standard items to be used in future contracts. The City plans to input all contracts into the PTP template so that the rates for these items can be tracked over time and used for estimating future work. It is recommended that the commonly used BFPP items be added to the PTP list of standard items. The database was used to establish initial rates to be used for these new PTP BFPP4 standard items. In future as new bid rates are entered against the PTP standard items, this data will be used as a cross check of the unit rates developed in the BFPP4 database. The unit rates developed will be annually reviewed and updated as market conditions dedicate.

3.2 Purpose of the cost estimating database The cost estimating data base and the unit rates for use during the preparation of EA and PD estimates are identified in Appendix C. These rates can be also be used during 75% detailed design and pretender estimate. However, these rates should be verified by the detailed design consultant (DDCA Consultant), particularly items which are non-typical/ unique to the particular contract or items where in the opinion of the DDCA consultant the unit rate used in the earlier estimates have changed with market conditions.

3.3 Updating of the unit cost database Market conditions and resource limitations can drive tender prices received upwards and downwards from previous historic data which has been used to populate the cost estimating data base. The Program Management Consultant (PgMC) will periodically review tenders awarded by the City over the course of the program to see if the unit rates identified in the cost estimating data base align with current market conditions. Where there is a measurable deviation from the rates identified in the cost estimating database, the database will be revised.



SECTION 4

Cost Estimating Tool for BFPP4

4.1 Components of the cost estimating tool The cost estimation tool for BFPP4 comprises two parts:

A standard Basis of Design and Cost estimate Form that must be completed and submitted with the cost estimate (Appendix A)

The standard EXCEL template for preparing and presenting cost estimates uniformly and consistently at different stages in the project life cycle (Appendix B).

Database of unit rates for standard BFPP4 items – (Appendix C).

4.2 Cost estimating database For the unit costs required for preparing cost estimate a database on unit rates has been prepared. For details refer to Section 3. The database is attached as Appendix C and will be updated periodically.

4.3 Basis of Design and Cost Estimate Prior to completing and submitting the cost estimate the Basis of Design and Cost Estimate should be prepared. The form is attached as Appendix A. The information required is described below:

Estimate preparation date and type

Provide the information described in italics below and then delete the italicized text. Date Estimate Prepared <<enter date>>

Assignment Phase <<EA, PD, 75% DD, 95%-100% DD>>

BFPP4 Estimate Class <<Class 1, 2, 3 or 4>>

Assignment Information

Name & Number

Study Area and Location

Reference Scope Management Document (Attach)

Project Manager

Cost Estimator(s)

Scope



Provide a brief description of the assignment scope of work, including the type of project (e.g., storm

drain, sewer rehab, water reservoir, etc.) and each major item of work. Note whether there are any

new or modified structures or structures that must be demolished and whether the work will require

any shut-downs or connections. Also mention the Stage Gate prior to which the estimate is being

prepared.

Location and site constraints

Identify any site constraints that may affect access, mobilization, or construction; and any significant

site issues that must be addressed (e.g., wetlands, hazardous materials, easements and/or

archaeological impacts). Be sure to consider how the site has been used historically, and identify any

site contamination or other problems that may exist as a result.

Schedule

Summarize the anticipated schedule, or attach the assignment schedule if there is a current version

that includes anticipated stage gates, key milestones and deadlines, and any construction windows or

other schedule constraints. Detailed schedules are expected for assignments that have crossed Stage

Gate 0.

Describe any Additional Scope not part of basement flooding program

Identify what additional water, road, state of good repair or other City departments may have added

to the basement flooding scope of the assignment. Make sure that the scope has been added to the

Scope Management document.

Construction Contracting Strategy

Note the planned contracting approach (e.g., design-bid-build, General Contractor/ Construction

Manager, design-build, job order contract). Summarize any construction assumptions, work hour

constraints and seasonal supply or construction constraints. Note if City is providing materials or

other scope items to the contractor.

Cost Estimating Methodology and Sources of Information

Detail all assumptions that support the total cost of each item.

List the primary estimating methodologies used for the construction cost estimate:

Historical unit costs ($/MG, $/SF, $/LF)

Similar completed project costs

Professional cost estimating judgment

Semi-detailed unit costs

Detailed unit costs



List the sources of information used in the estimate, including:

Pricing sources for construction and consultant costs, such as ASCE Cost Curves, BFPP4 Unit

Cost Database (Appendix C – identify version used), RSMeans, other projects, etc. and what

these costs include (contract line items, an Allowance for Indeterminates, sales tax, permit

fees, construction stage surveys and materials testing, and/or crew construction costs)

Tax rates as applicable

Construction cost indices and/or market condition adjustments used to update historical costs

to estimates expressed in today’s dollars

Real Property pricing source, if applicable.

Identify Allowances, Assumptions, Exceptions and Risks

Identify any allowances included in the estimate including Allowance for Indeterminate costs (AFI), additional assumptions regarding the scope, design and cost, any exceptions and deviations from normal practice in design and cost estimating.

Identify any significant risks and approach to accounting for the risk cost. Attach a copy of the risk register if applicable.

Estimate Quality Reviews and Revisions

Describe and document all cost estimate quality reviews, comments, results. Summarize revisions with reasons.

Benchmarking

Describe any cost benchmarking performed with similar projects and the results. Explain any significant differences in cost or efficiency.

4.4 Cost estimating template The cost estimation tool includes EXCEL templates for preparing and presenting uniform and consisten cost estimates. This template can be used for cost estimates prepared at all stages in the project life cycle and across the entire BFPP4. The template is attached as Appendix B.

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/FormBySubject/forms_LSUAlpha.aspx


“THIS DOCUMENT IS ONLY VALID ON 24-NOV-16. ONCE PRINTED THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES NOT CONTROLLED.”

Appendix A Basis of Design and Cost Estimate



Basis of Design and Cost Estimates

1. Estimate preparation date and type

Provide the information described in italics below and then delete the italicized text.

Date Estimate Prepared <<enter date>>

Assignment Phase <<EA, PD, 75% DD, 95%-100% DD>>

BFPP4 Estimate Class <<Class 1, 2, 3 or 4>>

2. Assignment Information

Name & Number

Study Area and Location

Reference Scope Management Document (Attach)

Project Manager

Cost Estimator(s)

3. Scope

Provide a brief description of the assignment scope of work, including the type of project (e.g., sewer rehab, water reservoir, etc.) and each major item of work. Note whether there are any new or modified structures or structures that must be demolished and whether the work will require any shut-downs or connections. Also mention the Stage Gate prior to which the estimate is being prepared.

<<enter text here>>

4. Location and site constraints

Identify any site constraints that may affect access, mobilization, or construction; and any significant site issues that

must be addressed (e.g., wetlands, hazardous materials, and/or archaeological impacts). Be sure to consider

how the site has been used historically, and identify any site contamination or other problems that may exist as

a result.

<<enter text here>>

5. Schedule

Summarize the anticipated schedule, or attach the assignment schedule if there is a current version that

includes anticipated stage gates, key milestones and deadlines, and any construction windows or

other schedule constraints. Detailed schedules are expected for assignments that have crossed Stage

Gate 0.

<<enter text here>>

6. Describe any Additional Scope not part of basement flooding program

Identify what additional water, road, state of good repair or other City departments may have added to the

basement flooding scope of the assignment. Make sure that the scope has been added to the Scope

Management document.

<<enter text here>>

7. Construction Contracting Strategy

Note the planned contracting approach (e.g., design-bid-build, General Contractor/ Construction Manager, design-



build, job order contract). Summarize any construction assumptions, work hour constraints and seasonal supply

or construction constraints. Note if City is providing materials or other scope items to the contractor.

<<enter text here>>

8. Cost Estimating Methodology and Sources of Information

Detail all assumptions that support the total cost of each item. List the primary estimating methodologies used for the construction cost estimate:

Historical unit costs ($/MG, $/SF, $/LF)

Similar completed project costs

Professional cost estimating judgment

Semi-detailed unit costs

Detailed unit costs List the primary estimating methodologies used for the soft cost estimate:

Soft Cost Estimating (City may set up a target – not done at this time) List the engineering deliverables used to prepare the construction cost estimate:

Design assumptions,

drawings/plans (XX% design),

Specifications,

Equipment lists List the sources of information used in the estimate, including:

Pricing sources for construction and consultant costs, such as ASCE Cost Curves, BFPP4 Unit Cost Database

(Appendix C – identify version used), RSMeans, other projects, etc. and what these costs include (contract line

items, an Allowance for Indeterminate costs, sales tax, permit fees, construction stage surveys and materials

testing, and/or crew construction costs)

Tax rates as applicable

Construction cost indices and/or market condition adjustments used to update historical costs to estimates

expressed in today’s dollars

Real Property pricing source, where applicable

<<enter text here>>

9. Identify Allowances, Assumptions, Exceptions and Risks

Identify any allowances included in the estimate including Allowance for Indeterminate costs (AFI), additional assumptions regarding the scope, design and cost, any exceptions and deviations from normal practice in design and cost estimating.

Identify any significant risks and approach to accounting for the risk cost. Attach a copy of the risk register if applicable.

<<enter text here>>

10. Estimate Quality Reviews and Revisions

Describe and document all cost estimate quality reviews, comments, results. Summarize revisions with reasons.

<<enter text here>>

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/FormBySubject/forms_LSUAlpha.aspx



11. Benchmarking

Describe any cost benchmarking performed with similar projects and the results. Explain any significant differences in cost or efficiency.

<<enter text here>>



Appendix B Cost Estimating Template

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4

COST ESTIMATING TOOL AND GUIDELINES

APPENDIX B ‐ COST ESTIMATING TOOL TEMPLATE

24‐Nov‐16

Assignment # X

Item DescriptionItem

Name

EA (Class 4

Cost Estimate)

PD (Class 3

Cost Estimate)

75% DD

(Class 2

Cost Estimate)

95% DD (Class

1 Cost

Estimate)

IFT

Pricing (Class

1 CE)

Lowest BidChange

Orders

Final

Contract

Price

Comments

1. BFPP ‐ Base Construction Cost (BC) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 1 ‐ Sanitary Sewers C1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Contingencies ‐ not included in

each item but under, 'Item 4‐

Contingencies'

Part 2 ‐ Storm Sewers C2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Note that qty‐take‐off may not

be possible for EA Ph. If so use

parametrica analysis for C1‐C11

and A1 to A11.

Part 3 ‐ Laterals C3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 4 ‐ Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer C4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 5 ‐ Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer C5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage C6

6.1 ‐ Subsurface Conduit C6.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6.2 ‐ Subsurface Tank C6.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6.3 ‐ Open Pond C6.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 7 ‐ Watermain Replacement C7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 8 ‐ Watermain Service Connections C8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 9 ‐ Permanent Restoration C9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 10 ‐ Miscellaneous C10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Not to be used as a contingency

but specified for special items

specific to a project.

Part 11 ‐ Allowances C11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.1 ‐ Bonds C11.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.2 ‐ Insurance C11.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.3 ‐ Mobilization C11.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.4 ‐ Field Office C11.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.5 ‐ Traffic Control C11.5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.6 ‐ Project Sign C11.6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.7 ‐ Condition Surveys C11.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.8 ‐ Sediment Control C11.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.9 ‐ Clearing C11.9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.10 ‐ Tree protection C11.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.11 ‐ Special Features C11.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.12 ‐ Additional Cost for Winter Work C11.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.13 ‐ Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils C11.13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.14 ‐ Prov. Sum for Snow Rem & Disposal C11.14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost (P) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Temporary Easement P1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Estimate Upper and Lower

limits of cost with input from

Real Property office

Permanent Easement P2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0




3. Additional Scope ‐ Construction Cost (AC) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 1 ‐ Sanitary Sewers A1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


each itembut under, 'Item 4‐

Contingencies'

Part 2 ‐ Storm Sewers A2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 3 ‐ Laterals A3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 4 ‐ Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer A4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 5 ‐ Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer A5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage A6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 7 ‐ Watermain Replacement A7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 8 ‐ Watermain Service Connections A8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 9 ‐ Permanent Restoration A9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 10 ‐ Miscellaneous A10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0




Part 11 ‐ Allowances A11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.1 ‐ Bonds A11.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.2 ‐ Insurance A11.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.3 ‐ Mobilization A11.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.4 ‐ Field Office A11.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.5 ‐ Traffic Control A11.5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.6 ‐ Project Sign A11.6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.7 ‐ Condition Surveys A11.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.8 ‐ Sediment Control A11.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.9 ‐ Clearing A11.9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.10 ‐ Tree protection A11.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.11 ‐ Special Features A11.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.12 ‐ Additional Cost for Winter Work A11.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.13 ‐ Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils A11.13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11.14 ‐ Prov. Sum for Snow Rem. & Disposal A11.14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL BASE CONSTRUCTION COST (TCC) (1+2+3) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4. Contingency (C= x% of (1+2+3)) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Buffer for occurrence of

foreseeable costs or 'known

unknowns' that are as yet not

fully estimated.

5. HST 13% of (1+2+3+4) $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0HST is calculated but not

included in Capital Cost.

6. Management Reserve ‐ 5%‐10% of (1+2+3) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Cost & scope changes that

cannot be foreseen or

identified. MR is not part of the

TPC.

7. Escalation (E) ‐ Enter date of Estimate

(1) Enter date Estimate was

prepared. (2) Escalation is

asumed to mid‐point f

construction


TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

(TPC =1.0176 times (1+2+3+4+7)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

The factor 1.76 represents the

component of HST not

reimbursed to the City.

‐20% to +40% ‐15% to +30% ‐10% to +20% ‐5% to +10% ‐5% to +10%

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

to to to to to

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


RANGE OF ACCURACY OF COST ESTIMATE

ACTUALSESTIMATED

1



APPENDIX B.1 ‐ WORKSHEET FOR EA PHASE COST ESTIMATE

Locked Input

Item # Items included in the AssignmentLocation/

Street

Size/

NumberDepth Quantity

Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B

1. BFPP ‐ Base Construction Cost (BC) $ ‐

Part 1 ‐ Santitary Sewers

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 2 ‐ Storm Sewers

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 3 ‐ Laterals (Default = 5% of the Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 5%

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 4 ‐ Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer (Default =30% of Part 1) 30%

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 5 ‐ Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer (Default =30% of Part 2) 30%

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage

Subsurface Conduit (Box culverts or large dia. pipes Included in Part 1 & 2) TOTAL = $0

Subsurface Tank TOTAL = $0

Open Pond TOTAL = $0

Part 7 ‐ Watermain Replacement (Default = 10% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 10%

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 8 ‐ Watermain Service Connections (Default =5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 5%

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 9 ‐ Permanent Restoration (Default =40% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 40%

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 10 ‐ Miscellaneous (Default =30% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 30%

TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 11 ‐ Allowances (Default =20% of Sum of Parts 1 to 10) 20%

Bonds $0

Insurance $0

Mobilization $0

Field Office $0

Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0

Condition Surveys $0

Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0

Additional Cost for Winter Work $0

Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils $0

Provisional Sum for Snow Removal & Disposal $0

TOTAL = $0 $0

2. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost (P) (Default =2% of Sum of Parts 1 to 10) 2% ‐$

Temporary Easements TOTAL = $0 $0

Permanent Easement TOTAL = $0 $0

3. Additional Scope ‐ Construction Cost (AC) $ ‐


TOTAL = $0 $0


EA COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT X

4 11/24/2016





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B

TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds $0

Insurance $0

Mobilization $0

Field Office $0

Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0


Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0

4. Contingency 25%

TOTAL = 0 $0

5 11/24/2016



APPENDIX B.2 ‐ WORKSHEET FOR PD PHASE COST ESTIMATE

Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B



TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds 0.75% $0

Insurance 0.75% $0

Mobilization 4.00% $0

Field Office 1.00% $0

Traffic Control 2.00% $0

Project Sign $650 $0

Condition Surveys $850 $0

Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0






TOTAL = $0 $0


PD COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT X

6 11/24/2016





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B

TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds $0

Insurance $0

Mobilization $0

Field Office $0

Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0


Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0

4. Contingency 15%

TOTAL = $0 $0

7 11/24/2016



APPENDIX B.3 ‐ WORKSHEET FOR DD (75%) PHASE COST ESTIMATE

Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B



TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds 0.75% $0

Insurance 0.75% $0






Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0






TOTAL = $0 $0


DD (75%) COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT X

8 11/24/2016





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B

TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds $0

Insurance $0

Mobilization $0

Field Office $0

Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0


Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0

4. Contingency 10%

TOTAL = 0 $0

9 11/24/2016




Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B



TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds 0.75% $0

Insurance 0.75% $0






Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0






TOTAL = $0 $0


DD (95%) COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT X

10 11/24/2016





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B

TOTAL = $0 $0


$0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds $0

Insurance $0

Mobilization $0

Field Office $0

Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0


Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0

4. Contingency 5%

TOTAL = $0 $0

11 11/24/2016



APPENDIX B.5 ‐ WORKSHEET FOR IFT PHASE COST ESTIMATE

Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B



TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds 0.75% $0

Insurance 0.75% $0






Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0






TOTAL = $0 $0


IFT COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT X

12 11/24/2016





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix B

TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds $0

Insurance $0

Mobilization $0

Field Office $0

Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0


Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0

4. Contingency 5%

TOTAL = $0 $0

13 11/24/2016



APPENDIX B ‐ COST ESTIMATING TOOL TEMPLATE

24‐Nov‐16

Assignment # 29‐29

Item DescriptionItem

Name

EA (Class 4 Cost

Estimate)

PD (Class 3

Cost Estimate)

75% DD

(Class 2

Cost Estimate)

95% DD (Class

1 Cost

Estimate)

IFT

Pricing (Class

1 CE)

Lowest BidChange

Orders

Final

Contract

Price

Comments

1. BFPP ‐ Base Construction Cost (BC) $0 $833,295 $1,031,527 $1,085,833 $1,085,833 $673,335

Part 1 ‐ Sanitary Sewers C1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


each item but under, 'Item 4‐

Contingencies'

Part 2 ‐ Storm Sewers C2 $0 $361,920 $482,540 $482,540 $482,540 $418,049

Note that qty‐take‐off may not

be possible for EA Ph. If so use

parametrica analysis for C1‐C11

and A1 to A11.

Part 3 ‐ Laterals C3 $0 $36,000 $32,400 $82,800 $82,800 $34,500

Part 4 ‐ Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer C4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 5 ‐ Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer C5 $0 $104,000 $204,075 $204,075 $204,075 $80,500

Part 6 ‐ Storage C6

6.1 ‐ Subsurface Conduit C6.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6.2 ‐ Subsurface Tank C6.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6.3 ‐ Open Pond C6.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 7 ‐ Watermain Replacement C7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 8 ‐ Watermain Service Connections C8 $0 $18,096 $24,127 $24,127 $24,127 $7,600

Part 9 ‐ Permanent Restoration C9 $0 $144,768 $193,016 $193,016 $193,016 $114,280

Part 10 ‐ Miscellaneous C10 $0 $108,576 $19,180 $19,180 $19,180 $9,606




Part 11 ‐ Allowances C11 $0 $59,935 $76,189 $80,095 $80,095 $8,800

2. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost (P) $0 $30,934 $38,214 $40,230 $40,230 $0

Temporary Easement P1 $15,467 $19,107 $20,115 $20,115 $0




Permanent Easement P2 $15,467 $19,107 $20,115 $20,115 $0




3. Additional Scope ‐ Construction Cost (AC) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL BASE CONSTRUCTION COST (TCC) (1+2+3) $0 $864,230 $1,069,740 $1,126,062 $1,126,062 $673,335

4. Contingency (C= x% of (1+2+3)) $0 $129,634 $106,974 $56,303 $56,303 $300,000

Buffer for occurrence of

foreseeable costs or 'known

unknowns' that are as yet not

fully estimated.

5. HST 13% of (1+2+3+4) $0 $129,202.36 $152,973 $153,707 $153,707 $126,534HST is calculated but not

included in Capital Cost.

6. Management Reserve ‐ 5%‐10% of (1+2+3) $0 $86,423 $106,974 $56,303 $56,303 $0

Cost & scope changes that

cannot be foreseen or

identified. MR is not part of the

TPC.

7. Escalation (E) ‐ Enter date of Estimate

(1) Enter date Estimate was

prepared. (2) Escalation is

asumed to mid‐point f

construction


TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

(TPC =1.0176 times (1+2+3+4+7)$0 $1,099,300 $1,306,281 $1,260,469 $1,260,469 $990,466

The factor 1.76 represents the

component of HST not

reimbursed to the City.

‐20% to +40% ‐15% to +30% ‐10% to +20% ‐5% to +10% ‐5% to +10%

‐ (824,475) (1,175,653) (1,197,446) (1,197,446)

to to to to to

‐ 1,429,090 1,567,537 1,386,516 1,386,516


RANGE OF ACCURACY OF COST ESTIMATE

ACTUALSESTIMATED

1

EXAMPLE




Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D



TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds $0

Insurance $0

Mobilization $0

Field Office $0

Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0


Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0






TOTAL = $0 $0


EA COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT 29‐29

2 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D

TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $0 $0


Bonds $0

Insurance $0

Mobilization $0

Field Office $0

Traffic Control $0

Project Sign $0


Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $0 $0

4. Contingency 25%

TOTAL = $0 $0

3 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE




Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D

1. BFPP ‐ Base Construction Cost (BC) $ 833,295.40


TOTAL = $0 $0


PDR Item 4 Supply & Install 1950mm dia pipe Axsmith Crescent 1950 4.5 120.64 $3,000 $361,920

IFT Item 1 Supply and Install 2400x1500mm Box Culvert Axsmith Crescent 2400x1500 4.5 $4,600 $0



IFT Item 4Supply and Install storm sewer incl removal of

existing 300 mmAxsmith Crescent 375 3 $800 $0

IFT Item 5Supply and Install storm sewer incl b/n ditch

inlet and MHA3Axsmith Crescent 450 3 $820 $0

IFT Item 6Supply and Install storm sewer incl b/n MHA3

& A4Axsmith Crescent 450 3 $820 $0

TOTAL = $361,920 $361,920


PDR Items 1,

2

Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet

with chamberAxsmith Crescent HCI chamber 2 $18,000 $36,000

IFT Item 15Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet

with sumpAxsmith Crescent HCI sump $7,500 $0

IFT Item 19

Remove and replace existing sewer service

lateral up to 250mm dia. ‐ up to 3.0 m in

depth, including connections, inclusive of all Axsmith Crescent Lateral $700 $0

IFT Item 11,

12Remove and replace single catchbasin Axsmith Crescent CB single $2,750 $0

IFT Item 13 Remove and replace catchbasin lead 250mm Axsmith Crescent CB lead $600 $0

IFT Item 14 Removal and disposal of Double Catch Basin Axsmith Crescent double removal $1,350 $0

IFT Item 16 Subdrain Axsmith Crescent Subdrain $25 $0

TOTAL = $36,000 $36,000


TOTAL = $0 $0


PDR Item 3

IFT Item 7

Supply and Install 3000x2400mm Concrete

Box MHAxsmith Crescent 3000x2400 6 2 $52,000 $104,000

IFT Item 8Supply and Install 2400x1500mm Concrete

Box MHAxsmith Crescent 2400x1500 6 $38,000 $0


Box MHAxsmith Crescent 2400x1500 4.5 $36,000 $0


Box MHAxsmith Crescent 2400x1500 4.5 $36,000 $0

IFT Item 11,

12Removal and Disposal of existing MH Axsmith Crescent Remove $1,500 $0

IFT Items 7‐10Install 1200mm pre‐cast Concrete

Maintenance Hole Manufactured TeeAxsmith Crescent 1200 Tee $8,269 $0

TOTAL = $104,000 $104,000

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $18,096 $18,096


TOTAL = $144,768 $144,768


PD COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT 29‐29

4 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D

IFT 17Clean existing Maintenance Holes and Catch

basinsAxsmith Crescent $1,000 $0

IFT 18Maintenance Hole Cover Sealing Watertight

Cover and FrameAxsmith Crescent $600 $0

IFT 21Clean, flush and video sanitary and storm

sewers and maintenance holes ‐ before Axsmith Crescent $10 $0

IFT 22 Post Construction Survey $2,000 $0

IFT 24Provisional Sum for Unsuitable Soils

(Additional Excavation)$100 $0

IFT 25 Test Holes $400 $0

IFT 26 Tree pruning $300 $0

TOTAL = $108,576 $108,576


PDR Item 9 Bonds $773,360 0.75% $5,800

Insurance 0.75% $0PDR Item 5;

IFT 27Mobilization $773,360 4.00% $30,934

PDR 8; IFT 30 Field Office $773,360 1.00% $7,734PDR 6&7; IFT

28Traffic Control $773,360 2.00% $15,467

IFT 20 Project Sign $650 $0

IFT 29, 30 Condition Surveys $850 $0

Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $59,935 $59,935

2. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost (P) (Default =2% of Sum of Parts 1 to 10) 2% 30,934.40$

Temporary Easements TOTAL = $15,467 $15,467

Permanent Easement TOTAL = $15,467 $15,467


4. Contingency 15%

TOTAL = $129,634 $129,634

5 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE




Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D

1. BFPP ‐ Base Construction Cost (BC) $ 1,031,526.70


TOTAL = $0 $0


PDR Item 4 Supply & Install 1950mm dia pipe Axsmith Crescent 1950 4.5 $3,000 $0

IFT Item 1 Supply and Install 2400x1500mm Box Culvert Axsmith Crescent 2400x1500 4.5 52 $4,600 $239,200




existing 300 mmAxsmith Crescent 375 3 21 $800 $16,800


inlet and MHA3Axsmith Crescent 450 3 5 $820 $4,100


& A4Axsmith Crescent 450 3 2 $820 $1,640

TOTAL = $482,540 $482,540


PDR Items 1,

2


with chamberAxsmith Crescent HCI chamber $18,000 $0


with sumpAxsmith Crescent HCI sump 2 $7,500 $15,000

IFT Item 19



depth, including connections, inclusive of all Axsmith Crescent Lateral 72 $700 $0

IFT Item 11,

12Remove and replace single catchbasin Axsmith Crescent CB single 2 $2,750 $5,500

IFT Item 13 Remove and replace catchbasin lead 250mm Axsmith Crescent CB lead 10 $600 $6,000

IFT Item 14 Removal and disposal of Double Catch Basin Axsmith Crescent double removal 2 $1,350 $2,700

IFT Item 16 Subdrain Axsmith Crescent Subdrain 128 $25 $3,200

TOTAL = $32,400 $32,400


TOTAL = $0 $0


PDR Item 3

IFT Item 7






Box MHAxsmith Crescent 2400x1500 4.5 1 $36,000 $36,000



IFT Item 11,

12Removal and Disposal of existing MH Axsmith Crescent Remove 6 $1,500 $9,000


Maintenance Hole Manufactured TeeAxsmith Crescent 1200 Tee 4 $8,269 $33,075

TOTAL = $204,075 $204,075

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $24,127 $24,127


TOTAL = $193,016 $193,016


DD (75%) COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT 29‐29

6 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D


basinsAxsmith Crescent 6 $1,000 $6,000


Cover and FrameAxsmith Crescent 6 $600 $3,600


sewers and maintenance holes ‐ before Axsmith Crescent 128 $10 $1,280

IFT 22 Post Construction Survey 1 $2,000 $2,000


(Additional Excavation)25 $100 $2,500

IFT 25 Test Holes 5 $400 $2,000

IFT 26 Tree pruning 6 $300 $1,800

TOTAL = $19,180 $19,180


PDR Item 9 Bonds $955,338 0.75% $7,165


IFT 27Mobilization $955,338 4.00% $38,214

PDR 8; IFT 30 Field Office $955,338 1.00% $9,553PDR 6&7; IFT

28Traffic Control $955,338 2.00% $19,107

IFT 20 Project Sign 2 $650 $1,300

IFT 29 Condition Surveys 1 $850 $850

Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $76,189 $76,189





4. Contingency 10%

TOTAL = $106,974 $106,974

7 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE




Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D



TOTAL = $0 $0












TOTAL = $482,540 $482,540


PDR Items 1,

2





IFT Item 19



depth, including connections, inclusive of all Axsmith Crescent Lateral 72 $700 $50,400

IFT Item 11,





TOTAL = $82,800 $82,800


TOTAL = $0 $0


PDR Item 3

IFT Item 7









IFT Item 11,




TOTAL = $204,075 $204,075

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $24,127 $24,127


TOTAL = $193,016 $193,016


DD (95%) COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT 29‐29

8 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D










IFT 25 Test Holes 5 $400 $2,000


TOTAL = $19,180 $19,180


PDR Item 9 Bonds $1,005,738 0.75% $7,543


IFT 27Mobilization $1,005,738 4.00% $40,230

PDR 8; IFT 30 Field Office $1,005,738 1.00% $10,057PDR 6&7; IFT

28Traffic Control $1,005,738 2.00% $20,115



Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $80,095 $80,095





4. Contingency 5%

TOTAL = $56,303 $56,303

9 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE




Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D



TOTAL = $0 $0












TOTAL = $482,540 $482,540


PDR Items 1,

2





IFT Item 19



depth, including connections, inclusive of all Axsmith Crescent Lateral 72 $700 $50,400

IFT Item 11,





TOTAL = $82,800 $82,800


TOTAL = $0 $0


PDR Item 3

IFT Item 7









IFT Item 11,




TOTAL = $204,075 $204,075

Part 6 ‐ Storage





TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $24,127 $24,127


TOTAL = $193,016 $193,016


IFT COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT 29‐29

10 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE





Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D










IFT 25 Test Holes 5 $400 $2,000


TOTAL = $19,180 $19,180


PDR Item 9 Bonds $1,005,738 0.75% $7,543


IFT 27Mobilization $1,005,738 4.00% $40,230

PDR 8; IFT 30 Field Office $1,005,738 1.00% $10,057PDR 6&7; IFT

28Traffic Control $1,005,738 2.00% $20,115



Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $80,095 $80,095





4. Contingency 5%

TOTAL = $56,303 $56,303

11 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE



COMER ‐ PRICING FORM

Locked Input


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D

1. BFPP ‐ Base Construction Cost (BC) $ 673,335.00


TOTAL = $0 $0









inlet and MHA3Axsmith Crescent 450 3 5 $1,000 $5,000


& A4Axsmith Crescent 450 3 2 $1,000 $2,000

TOTAL = $418,049 $418,049


PDR Items 1,

2





IFT Item 19



depth, including connections, inclusive of all Axsmith Crescent Lateral 300 $3 $900

IFT Item 11,


IFT Item 13Remove and replace catchbasin lead 250mm

to 300mm dia.Axsmith Crescent CB lead 10 $5 $50

IFT Item 14 Removal and disposal of Double Catch Basin Axsmith Crescent double removal 2 $250 $500

IFT Item 16 Subdrain Axsmith Crescent Subdrain 14 $25 $350

TOTAL = $34,500 $34,500


TOTAL = $0 $0


PDR Item 3

IFT Item 7









IFT Item 11,



Maintenance Hole Manufactured TeeAxsmith Crescent 1200 Tee 0 $8,269 $0

TOTAL = $80,500 $80,500

Part 6 ‐ Storage

Subsurface Conduit (Box culverts or large dia. pipes Included in Part 1 & 2) TOTAL =




TOTAL = $0 $0


TOTAL = $7,600 $7,600


TOTAL = $114,280 $114,280

COMER ‐ PRICING FORM OF ASSIGNMENT 29‐29

12 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE



COMER ‐ PRICING FORM


Street

Size/


Database

RateAmount

Amount to

Summary

Table Appendix D







sewers and maintenance holes ‐ before Axsmith Crescent 1 $1,500 $1,500




IFT 25 Test Holes 10 $10 $100

IFT 26 Tree pruning 6 $1 $6

TOTAL = $9,606 $9,606


PDR Item 9 Bonds $0 0.75% $0


IFT 27Mobilization $1 $50.00 $50

PDR 8; IFT 30 Field Office $1 $500.00 $500PDR 6&7; IFT

28Traffic Control $1 $50.00 $50

IFT 20 Project Sign 2 $100.00 $200

IFT 29 Condition Surveys 1 $8,000 $8,000

Sediment Control $0

Clearing $0

Tree protection $0

Special Features $0




TOTAL = $8,800 $8,800





4. Contingency 5%

TOTAL = $300,000 $300,000

13 11/24/2016

EXAMPLE



Appendix C Database of unit rates of BFPP

construction items



APPENDIX C ‐ RATE DATABASE

PTP Locked

Item Row

No.

Item

Category ‐

Level 1

Item

Category ‐

Level 2

Item

Category ‐

Level 3

Item Category ‐

Level 4

Item

Category ‐

Level 5

Description KPI Unit BFPP4

Unit Rate

Work Type Pipe Size Pipe Depth Comb

271 1 BFPP Sewers Supply 250mm dia. < 3m Supply and install

conduit, inclusive of

all costs

(excavation,

shoring, backfill,

compaction,

disposal, restoration

etc )

m $ 760 Sewer

250 3 250_3

266 2 BFPP Sewers Supply 250mm dia. 3 to 4.5 m ditto m $ 800 Sewer 250 4.5 250_4.5

268 3 BFPP Sewers Supply 250mm dia. 4.5 to 6 m ditto m $ 900 Sewer 250 6 250_6

4 BFPP Sewers Supply 250mm dia. > 6 m ditto m $ 2,000 Sewer 250 8 250_8

272 5 BFPP Sewers Supply 300mm dia. < 3m ditto m $ 780 Sewer 300 3 300_3


266 7 BFPP Sewers Supply 300mm dia. 4.5 to 6 m ditto m $ 950 Sewer 300 6 300_6


267, 235 9 BFPP Sewers Supply 375mm dia. < 3m ditto m $ 800 Sewer 375 3 375_3


270 11 BFPP Sewers Supply 375mm dia. 4.5 to 6 m ditto m $ 1,250 Sewer 375 6 375_6




15 BFPP Sewers Supply 450mm dia. 4.5 to 6 m ditto m $ 1,000 Sewer 450 6 450_6



225 18 BFPP Sewers Supply 525mm dia. 3 to 4.5 m ditto m $ 1,000 Sewer 525 4.5 525_4.5




226 22 BFPP Sewers Supply 600mm dia. 3 to 4.5 m ditto m $ 1,100 Sewer 600 4.5 600_4.5



25 BFPP Sewers Supply 750mm dia. < 3m ditto m $ 1,000 Sewer 750 3 750_3

26 BFPP Sewers Supply 750mm dia. 3 to 4.5 m ditto m $ 1,200 Sewer 750 4.5 750_4.5






































WORKING AREA

Part 1 & 2 Sewers ‐ Sanitary & Storm




PTP Locked

Item Row

No.

Item

Category ‐

Level 1

Item

Category ‐

Level 2

Item

Category ‐

Level 3

Item Category ‐

Level 4

Item

Category ‐

Level 5


Unit Rate WORKING AREA



66 BFPP Sewers

Culvert

Supply 1800mm (W)

900mm (H)

3 m ditto m $ 3,600 Sewer

1800x900 3 1800x900_3

67 BFPP Sewers

Culvert

Supply 1950mm (W)

1500mm (H)

4.5 m ditto m $ 3,800 Sewer

1950x1500 4.5 1950x1500_4

68 BFPP Sewers

Culvert

Supply 2400mm (W)

1500mm (H)


2400x1500 4.5 2400x1500_4

69 BFPP Sewers

Culvert

Supply 3000mm (W)

1500mm (H)


3000x1500 7 3000x1500_7

70 BFPP Sewers

Culvert

Supply 3000mm (W)

1800mm (H)


3000x1800 6 3000x1800_6

71 BFPP Sewers

Culvert

Supply 3000mm (W)

2100mm (H)


3000x2100 6 3000x2100_6

_

162 72 BFPP Sewers Supply Supply < 3m Remove and replace

existing sewer

service lateral up to

250mm dia. ‐ up to

3.0 m in depth,

including

connections,

inclusive of all costs

m $ 700 Lateral Lateral

Lateral_

218 73 BFPP Sewers Supply Catchbasins Leads Remove and replace

catchbasin lead

250mm to 300mm

dia.

m $ 600 CB CB lead

CB_lead

221 74 BFPP Sewers Supply Catchbasins Inlet Remove and replace

single catchbasin

each $ 2,750 CB CB single

CB_single

242 75 BFPP Sewers Supply Catchbasins Inlet Remove and replace

double catchbasin

each $ 3,500 CB CB double

CB_double

76 BFPP Sewers Supply Catchbasins Inlet Supply and install

Inlet Control Device

each $ 1,200 CB CB ICD

CB_ICD

77 BFPP Sewers Supply Catchbasins HCI Supply and install

High Capacity Ditch

Inlet

each $ 5,000 CB HCI

HCI_


High Capacity Ditch

Inlet with sump

each $ 7,500 CB HCI sump

HCI_sump


High Capacity Ditch

Inlet with chamber

each $ 18,000 CB HCI chamber

HCI_chamber

80 BFPP Sewers Supply Catchbasins Removal Removal and

disposal fo single

Catch Basin

each $ 750 CB single removal

single_remov

81 BFPP Sewers Supply Catchbasins Removal Removal and

Disposal fo Double

Catch Basin

each $ 1,350 CB double removal

double_remov

82 BFPP Sewers Supply Subdrain Subdrain Subdrain m $ 25 Subdrain Subdrain Subdrain_

_

260 80 BFPP Sewers Supply 1200mm dia. < 3m Supply and install

precast concrete

maintenance hole

including benching

and frame and

cover, inclusive of

all costs

each $ 8,000 MH

1200 3 1200_3

248 81 BFPP Sewers Supply 1200mm dia. 3 to 4.5 m ditto each $ 9,500 MH 1200 4.5 1200_4.5

252 82 BFPP Sewers Supply 1200mm dia. 4.5 to 6 m ditto each $ 11,000 MH 1200 6 1200_6

256 83 BFPP Sewers Supply 1200mm dia. > 6 m ditto each $ 13,000 MH 1200 8 1200_8

261 84 BFPP Sewers Supply 1500mm dia. < 3m ditto each $ 9,000 MH 1500 3 1500_3












96 BFPP Sewers Supply 3000mm dia. < 3m ditto each $ 25,000 MH 3000 3 3000_3

97 BFPP Sewers Supply 3000mm dia. 3 to 4.5 m ditto each $ 35,000 MH 3000 4.5 3000_4.5

Part 3 Laterals

Part 4 & 5 Maintenance Holes




PTP Locked

Item Row

No.

Item

Category ‐

Level 1

Item

Category ‐

Level 2

Item

Category ‐

Level 3

Item Category ‐

Level 4

Item

Category ‐

Level 5



98 BFPP Sewers Supply 3000mm dia. 4.5 to 6 m ditto each $ 45,000 MH 3000 6 3000_6

99 BFPP Sewers Supply 3000mm dia. > 6 m ditto each $ 60,000 MH 3000 8 3000_8

100 BFPP Sewers Supply 1200mm dia. 6 m Supply and Install

MH Riser

each $ 3,400 MH1200 6 1200_6

99 BFPP Sewers Supply 2400x

1500mm

4.5 m Supply and install

precast concrete

maintenance hole

including benching

and frame and

cover, inclusive of

all costs

each $ 36,000 MH

2400x1500 4.5 2400x1500_4


1500mm

6 m ditto each $ 38,000 MH2400x1500 6 2400x1500_6


2400mm

6 m ditto each $ 52,000 MH3000x2400 6 3000x2400_6


2400mm

6 m ditto each $ 58,000 MH3600x2400 6 3600x2400_6

103 BFPP Sewers Remove Remove and

Dispose

Removal and

disposal of existing

MH

each $ 1,500 MH

Remove Remove_

104 BFPP Sewers Reconnect Existing pipe to

new MH

NewConnect

ion

Reconnect existing

pipe to new MH

each $ 1,200 MHReconnect Reconnect_

102 BFPP Sewers Tee 150 6 m Install 150mm MH

Tee

each $ 820 MH150 Tee 150_Tee


Tee

each $ 1,150 MH200 Tee 200_Tee


Tee

each $ 1,600 MH300 Tee 300_Tee

105 BFPP Sewers Tee 1200mm 6 m Install 1200mm MH

Tee

each $ 8,269 MH1200 Tee 1200_Tee

_

106 BFPP Storage Supply Box culvert 1800 x 1200 Supply and install


all costs

(excavation,

shoring, backfill,

compaction,


etc )

m $ 3,900 Box

_

107 BFPP Storage Supply Box culvert 2400 x 1200 ditto m $ 4,600 Box_



110 BFPP Storage Supply Supply and install

orific plate

$ 1,500 Box_

111 BFPP Storage Supply Pond Supply and install

surface pond

m3 Future TBD Pond_

112 BFPP Storage Supply Tank Supply and install

underground tank

m3 Future TBD Tank_

_

369 113 BFPP Watermain Supply 150mm dia. Supply and install


all costs

(excavation,

shoring, backfill,

compaction,


etc )

m $ 550 Watermain

150 150_

370 114 BFPP Watermain Supply 200mm dia. ditto m $ 600 Watermain 200 200_

372 115 BFPP Watermain Supply 300mm dia. ditto m $ 700 Watermain 300 300_

337 116 BFPP Watermain Supply Fire Hydrant Fire Hydrant Supply and install

new hydrant,

complete of all costs

each $ 5,000 FH

_

339 117 BFPP Watermain Supply Gate Valve and

Box

150 mm Supply and install

150 mm gate valve

and valve box

each $ 5,000 GV

_


Box


200 mm gate valve

and valve box

each $ 5,500 GV

_


Box


300 mm gate valve

and valve box

each $ 7,400 GV

_

364 120 BFPP Watermain Supply 150mm dia. Horizontal

Directional

Drilling

Supply and install

PVC pressure pipe,

HDD Method

m $ 920 HDD

_


Directional

Drilling

Supply and install

PVC pressure pipe,

HDD Method

m $ 1,010 HDD

_

Part 7 Watermains

Part 6 Storage Facilities




PTP Locked

Item Row

No.

Item

Category ‐

Level 1

Item

Category ‐

Level 2

Item

Category ‐

Level 3

Item Category ‐

Level 4

Item

Category ‐

Level 5




Directional

Drilling

Supply and install

PVC pressure pipe,

HDD Method

m $ 1,200 HDD

_

123 BFPP Watermain Supply 150mm dia. Horizontal

Directional

Drilling

Supply and install

PVC pressure pipe,

Jack & Bore Method

m $ 3,100 HDD

_


Directional

Drilling

Supply and install

PVC pressure pipe,

Jack & Bore Method

m $ 3,300 HDD

_


Directional

Drilling

Supply and install

PVC pressure pipe,

Jack & Bore Method

m $ 3,600 HDD

_

_

318 126 BFPP Water

Service

Service

Connections

New

Connection

up to 50

mm dia.

Supply and install

copper water

service connections

to the property line,


each $ 3,000 Water

Service

_

311 127 BFPP Water

Service

Service

Connections

New

Connection

>50mm dia. Supply and install

PVC 100 to 200mm

dia. water service

connections to the

property line,


m $ 500 Water

Service

_

24 128 BFPP Site

Requirement

s

Test Pits Ufill Construct test pits

to determine

location and depth

of utilities ‐ backfill

with unshrinkable

fill as directed by

the Contract

Administrator

each $ 500

_

_

34 129 BFPP Roadworks Construct Concrete Curb Construct concrete

curb and gutter

m $ 100 _

41 130 BFPP Roadworks Construct Concrete Sidewalk Construct concrete

sidewalk, including

excavation and

grading ‐180 mm

thick

m2 $ 75

_

5 131 BFPP Site

Requirement

s

Boulevard Topsoil and Sod 100 mm Supply and place

100 mm topsoil and

No. 1 nursery sod

m2 $ 15

_

132 BFPP Roadworks Supply Pavement Light Supply and place HL

Asphalt

m2 $ 70 _

133 BFPP Roadworks Supply Pavement Medium Supply and place HL

Asphalt

m2 $ 80 _

134 BFPP Roadworks Supply Pavement Heavy Supply and place HL

Asphalt

m2 $ 100 _

44,47 135 BFPP Roadworks Construct Pavement Composite Construct concrete

road base, 32 MPa 7‐

day concrete‐ up to

250 mm depth

m2 $ 150

_

63 136 BFPP Roadworks Remove Cold Mill Pavement Cold milling asphalt

pavement up to 50

mm depth

m2 $ 20

_

82 137 BFPP Roadworks Remove,

Salvage, and

Replace

Interlocking

Stones

Concrete

Base

Remove, salvage

and replace

interlocking stones,

unit pavers, precast

slabs, granite sets,

flagstones, etc.

including sand

bedding and 100

mm thick concrete

base

m2 $ 100

_

_

76 138 BFPP Roadworks Remove Excavation Earth Excavation m3 $ 50 _

215 139 BFPP Sewers Site

Requirement

s

CCTV Before

Construction

Clean, flush and

video sanitary and

storm sewers and

maintenance holes ‐

before construction

m $ 10

_

Part 8 Water Service Connections

Part 9 Permanent Restoration

Part 10 Miscellaneous




PTP Locked

Item Row

No.

Item

Category ‐

Level 1

Item

Category ‐

Level 2

Item

Category ‐

Level 3

Item Category ‐

Level 4

Item

Category ‐

Level 5



4 140 BFPP Site

Requirement

s

Backfilling Ufill Supply and place

unshrinkable fill

backfilling

m3 130

_

141 BFPP Sewers Clean Existing MH +

CB

Clean existing MHs

and CBs

each $ 1,000 clean existing clean_existing

142 BFPP Sewers Sealing Existing MH +

CB

Maintenance Hole

Cover Sealing

Watertight Cover

and Frame

each $ 600

sealing watertight sealing_water

BFPP Survey Post

Construction

Post Construction

Survey

each $ 2,000

postconstruction postconstruct

BFPP Survey Provisional

Sum

Provisional Sum for

Unsuitabel Soils

(Additional

Excavation)

m3 $ 100

Provsum UnsuitableSoiProvsum_Uns

BFPP Survey Tree Tree Pruning each $ 300 treepruning treepruning_

143 BFPP Sewers Test Holes Test holes to

determine location

and depth of

utilities, services,

sewers and

watermains crossing

the trench, backfill

with 19 mm crushed

stone

each $ 400

testhole testhole_

_

13 142 General Site

Requirement

s

Supply Bonds Payment for Bonds lump sum 0.75%

_

18 143 General Site

Requirement

s

Supply Insurance Payment for All

Insurance

lump sum 0.75%

_

19 144 General Site

Requirement

s

Supply Mobilization /

Demobilization

Mobilization and

Demobilization

lump sum 4%

_

17 145 General Site

Requirement

s

Supply Field Office Supply, install and

maintain field office

for the City staff

lump sum 1%

_

20 146 General Site

Requirement

s

Supply Traffic Control Provide traffic

control for

maintenance of

traffic as per

Ontario Traffic

Manual (OTM) Book

7 Temporary

Conditions

lump sum 2%

_

12 147 General Site

Requirement

s

Signs Project Sign Supply, install and

manage "Capital

Improvement

Project Construction

Sign" as per contract

document

each 650

_

22 148 General Site

Requirement

s

Survey Condition

Survey

Provide pre‐

construction and

post‐construction

structural and crack

condition survey of

building / structure

and submit

condition survey

reports

each 850

_

16 149 General Site

Requirement

s

Supply Fence Sediment

Control

Supply install,

maintain and

remove sediment

control fence

m 20

_

8 150 General Site

Requirement

s

Grading and

Site

Clearing and

Grubbing

Clearing and

grubbing

m2

_

9 151 General Site

Requirement

s

Grading and

Site

Tree Protection Barrier for Tree

Protection

m 30

_

21 152 General Site

Requirement

s

Survey As Constructed

Survey

Provision of as‐

constructed survey

and as‐built

drawings

lump sum

_

_

_

2 153 General Escalation _

154 General HST

Adjustment

HST adjustment PS_

155 General Contingency EA Stage lump sum 25%_

Part 11 Allowances

Others




PTP Locked

Item Row

No.

Item

Category ‐

Level 1

Item

Category ‐

Level 2

Item

Category ‐

Level 3

Item Category ‐

Level 4

Item

Category ‐

Level 5



156 General Contingency PD Stage lump sum 15%_

157 General Contingency DD 75% Stage lump sum 10%_

158 General Contingency DD 95% Stage lump sum 5%_

159 General Contingency IFT Stage lump sum 5%_

160 General MR EA Stage lump sum 10% _

161 General MR PD Stage lump sum 10% _

162 General MR DD 75% Stage lump sum 10% _

163 General MR DD 95% Stage lump sum 5% _

164 General MR IFT Stage lump sum 5% _

_

_



Appendix D Process for Analysis of Unit Rates